Catalog of garbage: Canada 2 dollars 2012-

The post https://en.numista.com/forum/topic112743.html was closed, though the issue was not corrected yet and there was a question lerf unaswered, so it was a must to create a new topic.

the original post was
We still have inconsistency:

From one side Numista declares that its policy follows standards of catalog of coins, from another side its team guards the garbage in articles in rude way.

The article https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces32192.html
presents not only the description of garbage:

Position A - Edge lettering with Obverse on top
Position B - Edge lettering with Reverse on top

but pushes collectors to take care about it in the mintage section

2012 82 862 000 64%(fr) Tirage A et B / Tranche A
2013 12 390 000 20%(fr) Tirage A et B / Tranche A
2014 16 305 000 18%(fr) Tirage A et B / Tranche A
2015 30 378 500 22%(fr) Tirage A et B / Tranche A
2016 20 669 000 24%(fr) Tirage A et B / Tranche A
2017 75 000 6%Exists with A and B positions; non-circulation issue, in set only
2017 250 000 2%Exists with A and B positions; non-circulation issue, special wrap roll
2018 23 730 000 15%(fr) Tirage A et B / Tranche A

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic of course and in this post onwards this nonsense should be omitted.

The modification request https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=4936213
​

Field Given value
Edge: Description with keywords (en) Segmented reeding and incuse lettering.

Comments (en) In 2012 2 dollar piece started to be struck with security marks. They are the maple leaves in the circles on the reverse.

The Royal Canadian Mint's 2017 annual report stated a mintage of 24,465,000 for regular circulating 2017 coins, even though the circulating coins for that year only bore the Canada 150 commemorative design (which has a different mintage listed). However, starting in 2017, the annual report omitted the 'Coins struck dated 2017' table, meaning the 24,465,000 coins were probably dated either 2016 or 2018, even though they were struck in 2017.

Source: 1. The lines were deleted according to the standard Numista policy. If necessary, see the last post of Numista team Cyrillius in https://en.numista.com/forum/topic72054.html
2. Optional. For consistency it is better to remove similar comments in the French version of the article.


was returned in non polite way: there should be explanation for the contradictory behavior and not just commands of dictatorship.
Request state: Rejected by Québécois on August 11, 2021, 11:41PM
Comment: Redundant request...please stop asking for this change. It was refused in the past.

In which way is it possible to bring the article to Numista standards?

The question was

Verweis : "Sjoelund"​Alexander,
​
​why don't you just suggest to change the comments in the year lines on the English site to
​"Exists with A and B positions"
​instead of bulldozing people, you could cooperate in a nice manner?
​
​Do you eat a lot of garbage soup?
​
​

this question a bit not clear.

The Numista policy is described already:
they should not appear in the future.

It means, that there should not be any mentioning of dies position. That is why the proposed by Ole correction has nothing to do with the Numista requests.

The last two remarks are not related with the topic especially written by a person who stolen other's discoveries.

After answering the question, let us return to the main point:
In which way is it possible to bring the article to Numista standards?

Hello everyone, my English is not very fluent so I preferred to introduce the expression used in the title of this post "Catalog of garbage" to be sure it meant what I thought. And so it is.

I find it totally unacceptable that someone uses this type of expression in the Forum that we all use. I (like many other users) have created many of the pages in this catalog and I can feel offended by these types of expressions referring to the work that many users of this magnificent web page do.

Of course I have not bothered to read the rest of this user's Post, I refuse to give the pleasure of it being read and to give my opinion of its content.

I hope and wish that the moderators begin to make decisions about the language and expressions used in the Forum that may offend and annoy other users.

Regards and stay safe, Oscar

Why can't we just block that whining person? He's a pain in the neck, just to say it politely

Verweis : "cyprusalexander"​​In which way is it possible to bring the article to Numista standards?​

To bring about the changes you want, there is one rather easy way to accomplish that: be polite.

Your other thread was rejected before I had a chance to comment on it (and because I was going to reject it, I didn't bother with my explanation). Because you are now reposting this, I will post what I was originally going to say.

-----

Looking at your request, the referee is not wrong. You modified the order of the comments in the comments section, which could be seen as redundant (this is a subjective change). You also requested to remove the Position A / Position B details from the Edge section, which is unnecessary--while it is not important enough to appear in the year-list, having it mentioned as a general comment is perfectly acceptable and does nothing to harm the page.

For proof, you list a response by a former team member posted three years ago, but Cyrillus was specifically talking about the year-list ("All the "varieties" of the edges ( A / B ) were combined and should not appear in the future). When talking about combining, that can only be in regards to the year-lines, and so this has nothing to do with general comments. And that was what Jarcek was saying when he rejected your previous request: it would be wrong if the positions had their own year-lines, but it is alright to include a general mention of them.

Honestly, the only thing that could be seen as incorrect, in regards to this page, are the French comments on the year-lines (because those specifically describe Position A); however, your request had nothing to do with those comments, and if you wanted to, you could easily request to remove those comments yourself, by going to the French side of the page.

-----

And with all that being said:

You say the request was returned in a non-polite way, but if that is the case, what would you call your post right here? The referee never said your request was garbage. They also never called you a dictator or claimed that what you posted was nonsensical or fake. The referee was not being rude in any way--they simply rejected your request, politely asking you to stop sending identical requests.

Which brings me back to my first point: if you want your changes to be accepted, you need to be polite because these changes are subjective, and if someone is being rude while requesting subjective changes, why should the referee accept those?

You do make some good points sometimes--ones that should be dealt with. But because of how you "demand" changes, the referees are naturally less willing to deal with you. And so, if you were more polite, the referees would maybe be more willing to deal with you--and I say maybe because you've been "demanding" changes for quite some time, and a reputation is difficult to repair...

-----

And one more thing.

Verweis : "cyprusalexander​"​Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic of course and in this post onwards this nonsense should be omitted.​

​
You mention this is many of your requests. If this has nothing to do with the post in question, please do not mention it--there is literally nothing anyone can do about it, and so complaining about this, with the way you keep wording it, makes your post seem even more rude than it can already be interpretted as.

-----

And yeah... I will be rejecting this because your changes were redundant/subjective, and because the referee was not wrong.

May I ask, Alexander, why do you bother to do such small and insignificant change requests so often? Why did you feel the need to change order of the comments in the comment section?

At first I thought your request were fair, and the reponse was a little too over the top, but when I looked at the page you linked, all information is already there. So I was just wonder; Why do you feel the need to make hundred of requests where you just re-order the given information?

Dear Alexander,

I really enjoy reading your comments every where on this site. I feel you are very "thankfull" for all the work that was done by the Canadian referees before me and now myself. I really feel like you "appreciate" all the FREE work and efforts we do as referees.

Please feel free to apply for the job and fix this "garbage". I would like to see in how many days you can REVIEW and MAKE all the changes you are asking for, both to the french and english sections and for ALL the canadians coins.

For me personnaly, as I already wrote you in private and mentionned in the forums, I won't spend one more minute of my time reading a change request from you. Any request from you is automatiaclly rejected, even if relevant. Too bad for us in Canada, we probably cut our selves out of relevant changes. As mentionned many times, please contact (message) the other referee for Canada if you have any request. Maybe he will answer you...it's up to him.

For every action, there's a reaction. Your repeated actions got you into this. I'm not trying to get the other referees to follow my exemple...but if I were in your shoes, I would start following their advices to be more polite and patient before they do, country by country, systematically rejected your request as I do.

Best regards,

André