User talk:Theo10011

Welcome, Theo10011!

Hello, Theo10011, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! You may want to begin by reading these pages: Help Rules Links to useful pages How to write Simple English articles How to copy from another Wikipedia For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted articles. At Wikipedia, remember to be bold! This means that you should not be afraid to change any articles. This is because, if you make any mistakes, you can always fix it later! If you have any questions, you can always ask them at Simple Talk. I hope you have a fun time here. If you need any help, be sure to visit Simple Talk or contact an administrator. See you around!

Savh·^{Tell me} 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Savh. Theo10011 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make this article redirect to itself? Here is the diff: [1]. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed "(artist)" in the title, they were duplicate articles. I fixed it now [2]. Thanks for pointing it out. Theo10011 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to QD the article on Philipp v.g. bacher‎‎ has been denied. The article is subject to an RFD. Please join the discussion.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theo10011, thanks for your robust discussion on the IEP. However I did detect a note of sarcasm. This is not used on the Simple English Wikipedia as many of our editors are not native English speakers and will not pick it up. It is quite acceptable to be angry and frustrated, but say it directly. You wrote the project would be "in great hands" when I believe you meant exactly the opposite. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I will leave a note there Peter. I have heard these comments elsewhere, so yes that was sarcasm. BTW the majority of the discussion hasn't exactly been in simple English, and would probably not be easy to follow for non-native speaker. I thought the content of the discussion mattered more, but I see your point. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that it was necessary to join you and others in disagreement with the IEP 2.0 proposal.

In my opinion, a better start-up plan was used in an SEWP pilot program in Japan. I mentioned it here, but two sentences may have been overlooked in the wall of words:

"... a very different kind of strategy has marked the development of a pilot SEWP program at Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) here and here. Strategic planning and context-building here and here were quite distinct from the IEP 2.0 proposal."

I would have thought we want to find ways to build on what works well. --Horeki (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Theo10011 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]