User talk:Nrgullapalli

Naageswara Rao Gullapalli 5-36 Durganagar, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad 500060 India

Email:nrgullapalli@gmail.com. Mobile: 9848211556

--Nrgullapalli (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Validating
Hello,

You've validated 44 pages in the last 12 minutes, at an average of 16 seconds per page, including load time and save time. I suggest that you cannot possibly be validating properly at that speed.

Kind regards, Hesperian 02:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance --Nrgullapalli (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What is meant by "validating properly" is that the transcribed text in the left hand box is compared with that in the scanned image to make sure that there are no transcription errors. i.e. all words are spelt correctly, all punctuation is correct, and any layout variations are accounted for. At the speed in which you validated the Shakespeare pages it is not humanly possible to have read the text let alone done the necessary checking. As a result those pages will need to be done again by someone. I have put our standard welcome template below this message. It has several useful links to pages about our processes and policies. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Text on left hand side is compared with scanned copy as advised by you.

--Nrgullapalli (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome
Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you it is a good training one needs in validating any item in wiki pages. --Nrgullapalli (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nil corrections
Hello,

I think you're aware that I was actively validating Two Magics when you dropped right in front of me and started validating from the very next page. Since, at the time, you were validating at an impossible speed, I continued validating behind you. I am finding and correcting the occasional error overlooked by the proofreader. These errors have slipped by you too. That would normally be okay—we all overlook the occasional error—but I have reviewed your edits and I find that in your entire edit history you have never fixed a single error!

Since you started off validating so fast that you quite obviously weren't actually reading the page text, and you now have a 0% error correction rate, I think you've rather exposed yourself to the suspicion that, despite having throttled down your save rate, you are still not reading the page text. Are you a bot? Are you trying to build an edit count cheaply? What gives?

Hesperian 09:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted for future guidance

--Nrgullapalli (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing
Please review What is Wikisource and Style guide, particularly the section on wikilinks. The wikilinks that you're currently adding are unhelpful. Wikilinks should be made for links to cited works hosted on Wikisource, links to author pages hosted on Wikisource, and in certain cases links to Wikipedia or Wiktionary to elucidate a reference to an obscure subject. Prosody (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Noted --Nrgullapalli (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a really helpful and knowledgeable community, so please feel welcome to ask questions of the community members at the Scriptorium links above. We do try to have our help information nice and compact, so hopefully some of the questions that you have may already be answered in some of the other links. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you don't seem to have read the indicated page about links. 1) They are the wrong links, completely broken; 2) they are links that we would not add, even if they were correct. Please take the time to read our guidance. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Simply skimming through a page is insufficient. You must read and compare every word and point of punctuation and make the appropriate changes. You continue to have access to edit this page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You still need to do better with your validation. You are missing phantom spaces in words, poorly scanned letters, etc. I rarely see you find errors and that would indicate a greater level of vigilance is required. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed --Nrgullapalli (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Validating redux
Please don't validate these Index pages starting from Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 54.djvu/889 unless you checked if the Index entry is linked to the corresponding topic. — Ineuw talk 04:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * stopped --Nrgullapalli (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your salary and bonuses from Wikisource is going to be the same no matter how many pages you proofread or validate. Just take your time to check your work. If you need any help, or have a question, leave a message on my talk page. — Ineuw talk 06:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you --Nrgullapalli (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Review of one recently validated page
Hi, I have just reviewed your validation of Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 1.djvu/107 in which you found no errors. There are at least six (6) errors on the page: While we don't expect perfection, you should have found some of these. This is the purpose of Validating.
 * In line six of the poem there is an extra space before the semi-colon;
 * Both uses of the word "Ætna" in the poem have a full-stop after them when there is none in the text;
 * In the second paragraph the word "Churchill's" has not been corrected;
 * Later in the same sentence the word "a" has come through as "s"; and
 * The last punctuation mark on the page should be a comma, not a full stop.

If you are going to continue to validate complex works like the Biographical Dictionary we need you to be a lot more careful when doing so. This was only from one page, which does not fill me hope that the many other pages you have validated in the past couple of weeks meet the high standard we expect in the validation process.

Please re-do this page based on the above list. Please also go back over what you have already done on this work and see if you can find similar errors. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pages marked problematic
When pages are marked problematic, there's some issue which needs to be resolved before it can be considered proofread, whether because it has unusual formatting, it has images which haven't been properly included, or it has non-English text. It shouldn't be marked proofread until that issue is addressed. In the case of Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 1.djvu/103, there was missing Greek language text. Prosody (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks --Nrgullapalli (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your validation still lacks corrections
I have been following on behind you rechecking your validations. At this point you don't make changes that I can see, and you continue to miss things, eg. this fix. We will all miss things, that is not my point, the point is that you do not seem to find errors to fix. You are either too polite to make a change, or not sufficiently observant in the English language. Unfortunately, I am not seeing a lot of value with your proofreading and wondering whether you would be better off editing at another Wikisource in your native language. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Validating—or lack of it—in Passages from the Life of a Philosopher
I have gone through literally all of your 'validations' in that book. That is more than 300 edits. You corrected not a single error. On the other hand, on a cursory spot-check of your edits, I found 8 errors and there will be more because I did not look at all the pages in detail.

You have been warned many times to validate properly. Yet you have consistently failed to do so. Your contributions page shows all (0)s on previous books (except where there is a difference due to a change in the underlying markup), and Hesperian has said the same to you above. I cannot tell now whether you are incompetent or just taking the piss.

Please immediately stop marking pages as validated, because it is clear you are not actually validating them. If you do not stop voluntarily I will ask an admin to block you again, if one doesn't do it unilaterally. BethNaught (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (pings )
 * Voluntarily stop, or be forced. Please choose. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On further review I see that you are exhibiting exactly the same behaviour on the Telegu Wikisource—and have received warnings there about it also. It is time to stop. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)