Let us have a look step by step.
The first post already gave answered to many questions, it is worth just to read it.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
2. <...> so I think you're being particularly pedantic on this one. Same with the motto*.
It seems that this accusing is not to the correct person. It is to the rules of Numista catalog. Till now we have:
Quote: "cyprusalexander"
which contradicts the rules of Xavier:
"Include the small letterings like the engraver name and motto on the coats of arm."
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/instructions.php
[...]"
This first post already explain, whom
CassTaylor should accuse. Let us for future discussion name this quote [1].
Quote: "CassTaylor"
3.
If you took even ten seconds to look at the rest of the Malaysia listings you'd see all the sides with the crescent are the "obverse" in a consistent listing.
Exactly. It is a side work. The position of the sides Obv. and Rev. are confused. According to the numismatic textbooks for students, the side with the name of country is the main in this particular case. So the sides should be switched. Something like this happened with Russian coinage, but a recently came referee made this huge job and put the sides in correct order. We have to thank him for this only apart of many other improvements. It is much more then thousand articles.
Quote: "CassTaylor"
* The opinion that lettering on coats of arms and other minute details should not be included has been discussed before, at the behest of this same member. There's a certain degree of referee autonomy here, and like several others I have decided against including those in the lettering box.
It is not clear at all. First, the link is to the case which is solved completely. Second, the solution is done there according to the rules, mentioned in the first post [1].
Quote: "CassTaylor"
You know what, I'll call your bluff. Go through all the Singapore coins and add 3 more "Singapore"s to the translation box of each. Do that to all 406 relevant coins, and then we'll talk some more.
Now we have contradiction. Here we have direct instruction to correct just 406 articles according to the rules of Numista. Let us name this quote [2]. It is from one side. But the first post explained, that any attempt to do that meets rejection! It is from the other side. Personal message to the referee brought to no results. As it was already mentioned all answers are in the first post, it is worth just to read it. I don't mind and I do make these corrections (see the first post with modifications). But as
CassTaylor explained these modifications are correct and they are to be done, still there is no way to do them in this particular cases. It is not good to receive 406 rejections.
Quote: "Sjoelund"cyprusalexander,
why do you say those coins are "fake" by the way? Please explain! Or don't you master Shakespeare's tongue?
Ole
If you ask this question it means that it is worth to answer it. First of all, thank you for the reference to the person whose mind through Hamlet and Othello connected yours and mine countries. Second, it does not seem to be very difficult. As I understand, one of reason, why Xavier introduced this rule [1] is to help a collector find everything about a coin in its description. Actually on mine opinion it is a great idea. People who study numismatics as science (not just as passion, which is excellent) know from their experience that the main source of information about coin is the coin itself. In these cases descriptions do not correspond any coin. There are no coins with such descriptions in real world. That is why the descriptions are about fakes. It is easy to verify: it is enough to present an item corresponding the description, which was issued by mint during the time of emission. Then, for this item is coin by definition, the description corresponds ... to the coin. But... in this case I'm pretty sure the Numista catalog will add one more article for your discovery. Most probably not an extra line in year distribution but the whole article.
As for the last remark, I believe it was answered in the first post completely and commented with the help of the second post here.
To summarize, am I right that the answer to the question in the first post:
In which way is it possible to write the truth in the Malaysian and Singapore coinage part of the Numista catalog?
is :
in the modification requests the link to this post should be added, so a referee will follow the instructions of
CassTaylor [2]?