Hi Hive account@philosophycopy-

As mentioned in my post a few days ago about Part 6, this "translation" is extremely lacking.

• Please note that the letter "x" should likely not appear in an Esperanto translation. The letter "x" is not a letter in the Esperanto language. There are six letters in Esperanto not appearing in the English language: ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ. There are various alternative typing systems if there is no way to type Esperanto -- what you're seeing above is the X-system and considered a system of last resort. It's OK if you're translating on an 1980's typewriter. However, with modern software and web encoding, it is really easy to set up a device to type these characters! What you see above is like someone typing n~ as the Spanish ñ. You'd never see "n~" in a translation EN > ES.
• Aside from the spelling issues of the proper letters, I see a number of basic typographic errors in the above screenshots, and found many more - for example, I see "Rekompenco Punktoj Aldonis" which makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. What you typed above was (noun) (noun) (transitive verb), instead of (adjective) (noun) (intransitive verb), which I think is what you mean.
• Esperanto has a system of marking the direct object called the accusative case. (Other languages have this, too. It's like the distinction we have in "who" versus "whom"; "he" versus "him". The direct object gets the extra letter. So, "Vi ŝanĝis modulon lastan." This important rule seems to be ignored in these translations.
• Verbs in Esperanto are somewhat like English. There are some verbs that require a direct object, and some that don't. The verb above "aldonis" is the equivalent of the past tense of "to add", and requires a direct object. When you have "(Something) aldonis," I think... "added what?"
• I've found several edits that unfortunately look like they may have been copied from Google Translate. The individual words could mean what they said, but together they make no sense.
• Finally, we have some important rules of style and writing that a translator should probably know and adhere to. I'd recommend checking a translation against the following works, among others:

1. Plena Manlibro de Gramatiko (Extremely thorough grammar book.)
2. Plena Ilustrita Vortaro (Basically our "Dictionary.com" for Esperanto.)
3. Komputeko (Established computer jargon.)

I hope this helps! I am enthusiastic that people are translating works into Esperanto. I do not want to criticize, but I think something should be said so that we get quality translations into our language.

Until that point, I am flagging improper and sloppy translations like this. If you can start cleaning up your translations, I will happily rescind the flag! Cheers.