Catalog of garbage: Canada 2 dollars 2012-

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?

Oh the Great Alex in all his splendor.

Why don't you go and plant some roses and learn how to address them quietly, politely and with love.

It is ok to mention the positions, if they had different lines, it would be wrong. This way it is ok.

This way it's okay but still redundant because these coins are not single strike nor hand placed and as such always in A or B.

The article is not corrected yet and it still contradicts the Numista policy

Citação: "Cyrillius"​Hello.
​It's amazing how this topic is periodically updated again and again. However, I will remind that this issue has already been closed, and there is no point in discussing it again. All the "varieties" of the edges ( A / B ) were combined and should not appear in the future.

about the subject: they "should not appear in the future" , but this article still has.

In which way it may be returned to the Numista standards?

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?

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. 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

​​
​Just to answer your question, when a really nice canadian referee agrees to take some of his free time to do it.

But, in my free time, I work first on the nicely asked requests from nice people. I spend my time on my priorities by order of importance I fix (like an emergency triage). So it could be quite a very long while. In my evaluation, I have a lot of fixing to do with "Title", "Obverse descriptions" etc. in the french section before fixing the issues you are reporting in the english section.

Again, apply to a referee position and fix the english section if you dare. Meanwhile, I'll be working on the french section, it need my immediate attention.

Here the referee of Canada clearly informs that he is bulling,

In which way Numista team can stop this harassment?

In which way article

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces32192.html

can be returned to the Numista standards?

Little man, when will you ever learn, when will you ever learn?