Talk:Paula Radcliffe

This article is about a person who is alive, and so it must follow our rules for biographies of living persons. Controversial content about living persons that does not have any sources or is poorly sourced must be removed straight away from the article and its talk page, especially if it harms their reputation. If such content is repeatedly added to the page or if there are other concerns related to this rule, report it on the Administrators' noticeboard.

Copy and paste[change source]

I have reverted the massive copy and paste from the English Wikipedia's article. At times, the article was overly complex. At other spots, it contained a lot of fragments. I suggest that this article be built section by section rather than one big text dump. Discussions at the English Wikipedia's talk page show that even they do not like their version the way it is right now. Let's not copy and paste something that is in question there, too. Only (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was only in question because someone didn't like the fact that it got structured properly and didn't like the fact that they had to edit massive bits, to achieve small things. Please read properly, before posting. Saying in sections that it's complex and fragmented is NOT a reason to revert. Helpersimples (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid reason. See Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles#What not to do:

Do not...: Just copy a whole article from the normal English Wikipedia and leave it like that without simplifying it. If you do not simplify it, it will be difficult to understand, and is likely to be immediately deleted. See Help:Translate English into Simple English

Goodvac (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being complex and fragmented is a perfectly acceptable reason to revert. This project is the Simple English Wikipedia. If the article is not written in Simple English, nor is it close, then reverting it to a stub is perfectly acceptable. Rather than reverting me, please work on improving this article bit by bit as I previously suggested/stated. Only (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about I want to work on the article in it's current form then i know what I am looking at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpersimples (talk • contribs)

You can put it in your user space and try working on it there, but it would not be acceptable to put it in the article space as it is right now. Only (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is acceptable. it has been signficantly simplfied and secondly it's been like that for a day. That is not enough time to truely sort this out. Helpersimples (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But since you won't read and take one look at it and revert for no reason, I will revert you. Good day Helpersimples (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not acceptable in its current form. Here are just some of the numerous examples of fragments/non-Simple English:

"Breaking the old one which had stood for 13 years."
"89 seconds inside the old time and finished over two minutes ahead of Ndereba."
"Who was busy targeting records on the track and had not decided to take part."
"Making her the first woman in over 10 years to win the award."

Please work on this article in your user space rather than in the article space for the time being. Only (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I refuse, I am workiing on it here whether you like it or not. and you have to go to 2002 to come up with an example tells you that the rest of that was OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpersimples (talk • contribs)

No, it just means that I selected a paragraph or two at random in the middle of the article and that's what I found. This problem is persistent throughout the entire article, not just the one section I highlighted. Only (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]