User talk:Quota

&#8216;Talk away...&#8217;

Biltong
Just look at the article history. You are the one who was opposed to claiming that biltong differs from jerky because it is never sweet (you even claimed that you have personally tasted British made biltong that was in fact sweet). You correctly pointed out that such a claim is not supported by a cite. I then agreed with you that finding a cite to support the claim would be virtually impossible - people generally don't write about what things are not, unless they are specifically refuting a pre-existing erroneous allegation. Now you have done a complete turnaround and want the statement to be included - even though the chance of it ever having a RS is very slim. I don't understand how/why you have reversed your position. Roger (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Roger, I think we may be victims of the too-short comments in the history. I completely agree that the distinguishing feature between jerky & biltong is that the former is (almost always) sweet and the latter is (almost never) sweet.  My objection was simply that 'never' is too strong a word to use here, especially as it is about a subjective opinion.  I'm still not sure why you objected to my 'watering down' the adverb so it was not controversial.
 * I do think that the distinction is worth pointing out -- without it, that sentence just says 'jerky and biltong are different in unspecified ways', when in practice they are hugely different. Hope that clarifies, and thanks for getting in touch! quota (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your latest edit has got it right, the way you've formulated the statement looks sustainable to me. Cheers! Roger (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, great, and thanks! quota (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chintz edit
Regarding your edit to Chintz, I'm sure you meant well, but you may not have realised that chint redirects to a page for a Chinese electronic goods company. I reverted as it looked like stealth advertising for the CHINT co., although I'm sure your edit was made in good faith. Mabalu (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted -- thanks, will revise ...

Decimal representation
Hi. You have reverted my edit in decimal representation. If you think that it is only an advert, then put ther link to free tool which can find period and preperiod of decimal representation of ratio. I do not know such tool. Best regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a software tools directory ... :-) quota (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So why you don't remove also link to Plouffe's inverter ? --Adam majewski (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point!  Done.  quota (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view but I do not agree with you . See : "External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article;" ( from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not ) --Adam majewski (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, put it back then. I won't remove it a second time.  I just had another look at that page you linked -- at first glance all one sees is the two huge adverts, the the first has nothing to do with the topic.  Why not move them down a bit...?   quota (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Twelfth Night (holiday)‎
You should look at my comments on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, why? I haven't made any edits on that page (or its Talk), I think?    quota (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)