Humiliation of Author rights

The article of Isle of Man coinage 10 Pence - Elizabeth II Chicken Rock Lighthouse, magnetic plated steel KM# 1256a

 is full of mistakes and inconsistencies. As the result at convenient occasion the modification request was created;

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/voir_demande.php?id=12478143

Note. Obviously the right  information is part of the article, but it does not consists of the data of the article directly.  This is not the case of this topic and in this post  onwards this important addition will be omitted. 

Though the modification was rejects, article adopted the description of the Rev. 

It is still an example of grammar  nonsense in the Obverse (head): Description with keywords (en)

which is corrected everywhere, according to preposition made by the author a few years ago to return to the grammar learned in primary school. Here it is still rejected, which means that the referee as well as His Majesty after appeal insist on spoilage and continue guard the fake text.

The modifications of Reverse (back): Description with keywords (en) and Reverse (back): Lettering

were accepted, which improved the quality of the article.

But the Comments section

These coins are distinct from KM# 1256 by being magnetic.

2016

Variant without mint mark and with dies letters AA.
Picture: © Images courtesy of Alexandr Prokofyev.

is look as

That is completely rejected.

 More over the image was used somewhere and intentionally hidden without asking written permission by Numista team:

 the image is not visible at all
 

It is in complete contradiction of Numista policy where different variants are described in Comments, see for example

N#3303 where it is comments, which help to distinguish the dies

or N#5824

where standard in British coinage classification was introduced.

It is the Comments which help to make attribution correctly and easy.

In which way the humiliation of Author rights can be corrected?

cyprusalexander

 

Obviously the right  information is part of the article, but it does not consists of the data of the article directly.  This is not the case of this topic and in this post  onwards this important addition will be omitted. 

 

Though the modification was rejects, article adopted the description of the Rev. 

It is still an example of grammar  nonsense in the Obverse (head): Description with keywords (en)

 

which is corrected everywhere, according to preposition made by the author a few years ago to return to the grammar learned in primary school. 

Before you talk about grammar nonsense, reread your own text (the parts in bold). I think you've missed a few lessons too in primary school.

Every single post you make is full of attacks and in such a language that in the end nobody knows what you really mean. Is it so difficult for you to write a normal simple civilized text without insults and attacks?

Every time you post something people ask themselves, what attacks and nonsense will it be this time and people get tired of you and you lose your credit. I think that's one of the reasons of your rejections.

I would have accepted the images in the comments sector. And I think if you weren't such a pain in the ass much more of your requests would be accepted.

This coin has 13 variants (years, die letters, with mintmark or without). Should we really desribe all of them in comment sections if all is clearly written on yearlines? If not, there is no sense to write only about one variant.

For photos, I think there are very usefull and I added them as an example of the type and informed the author about. See here, the last one (all previous one are my personal photos): https://en.numista.com/catalogue/examples.php?id=234406

I will be nice and will not comment the part about grammar ;-)

Referee actually took time to add your images as an example to the yearline. As usual, you omitted the fact that admins can access and publish whole request. Please add such variants as examples to the yearlines.