Open protest to Numista on actions of the referee Oklahoman! [Resolvido]

Hi,
All this around the coin Isle of Man 2 Pence 1998. At this moment this coin sheet has a photo with triskeles and field Comments with this:
A new listing, KM#901.1, has been created. This type has no triskelion seperating elements of the obverse lettering. Please move any KM#901.1 you may have listed here to the appropriate listing. Thanks.

At first history
-------------------
I submitted modification request to change field Comments on this:

KM#901.1: an obverse without triskeles
KM#901.2: an obverse with 3 triskeles dividing legend

All this was rejected by Oklahoman with note "My wording stands until all listings have moved. Thank you."

Ok. Then I submitted second request - I just asked to add my photo to the current Comments. And I noted to the referee:
1) As I understood, comments like this "A new listing, KM#901.1, has been created...Thanks" are directed for people who have this coin to pay attention to changes. Desire to inform people about change is a good tone!! But, unfortunately, on Numista there is no notification mechanism. It should be emailing to people who have it.
And similar comments are very INEFFICIENT (and besides they don't beautify respectable catalog!!).
2) In my opinion these coins #901.1 and #901.2 have essential difference, and it was necessary to create two coin sheets (Numista policy of coins uniting is very strange for me!!). But since you united two varieties in an one coin sheet, I ask you to accept my photo of another variety.

It was rejected by Oklahoman with note "no photographs in comments".

-------------------
About the current comment in Field Comments "A new listing, KM#901.1, has been created... Thanks."
I deal with very brisk stream of coins, but for the first time I see such "interesting" comment on Numista. Thank you, Oklahoman, for this!
In fact I don't protest against it. But if you really want to help people to be informed, you should "press" Xavier to create a mechanism of automatic notification (emailing).
Today Numista is real leader among similar projects. So Numista catalog must be serious and solid! I want to say that in a respectable catalog the fields of coin description should describe coins but not actions and instructions of a referee!!

-------------------
And I want to protest against rejection of my photo!
We have 2 different coins here. The referee united them to one coin sheet. I don't want now to discuss such actions, because this is a chronic disease of Numista, and I already tried to raise this problem - see Numista: Unsolvable Problem. Ok! it's not 2 different coins - it's 2 varieties. All I wanted - to give photo of second variety for comparison. But it was rejected!... And with what formulation?... Maybe bad photo? - No! Maybe irrelevant photo? - No! Maybe he doesn't like my signature? - No!... Formulation was... "no photographs in comments"!!!
It was said by the referee?!! I just have no words!!

Dear Oklahoman! Look please at my mentioned forum post, look at the answer of KennyG:

"...to describe the differences in these varieties, we have the Comments field, which allows images to be uploaded to show the differences."
If it isn't enough. Dear Oklahoman, maybe you will be surprised, but now rather many coins have specifying photos in field Comments!!

Of course the respectable referee can tell that this is a simple difference, and anybody can understand a difference from text comments of an year list... No! No matter simple or not simple! There are differences, so it will be a good tone if the catalog provides visual comparison. And don't forget that not everyone knows English well (moreover, not everyone knows what is "triskele"!)

Dear Numista Team!
I try as my best to make Numista better. I hope that my efforts and my contribution costs something here. I don't care who is Oklahoman. But now this request is a matter of principle! So I "ask" for you to accept my request!!

Regards, Victor

The way I understand it, if the KM# has an a, b, c, etc after it (i.e. KM#12, KM#12a) then there is a substantial difference, usually a different metal, i.e. keeping the same design but changing from silver to cu-ni. If this is the case then the coins will have different weights and another page should be created.

However, if it just has a decimal point (i.e. KM#12.1, KM#12.2) then it is a minor variation in the design and is not really a different coin, just a variety, therefore they should be on the same sheet.

The only way for referees to delete coins is to either get everyone to unlink from the coin, or to get the catalog administrator (Jarcek) to delete it.

Hello,

I believe some misunderstanding happened here really. You can of course upload your photo. Point is that Oklahoman created new sheet for KM#901.1 https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces91995.html. You can safely upload your photo there. He rejected your request because it was counter-productive to what he was trying to do (separate the variants)

I now moved all members to the new listing and requested deleting now redundant comment.

Variety inclusion on one sheet or separating them is in the hands of respective referees. Somewhere it makes sense, somewhere it would be unnecessary.

It is referees choice what they perceive as "different enough to justify new sheet".

Best regards,
Jarek

Citação: "neilithic"​The way I understand it, if the KM# has an a, b, c, etc after it (i.e. KM#12, KM#12a) then there is a substantial difference, usually a different metal, i.e. keeping the same design but changing from silver to cu-ni. If this is the case then the coins will have different weights and another page should be created.
​
​However, if it just has a decimal point (i.e. KM#12.1, KM#12.2) then it is a minor variation in the design and is not really a different coin, just a variety, therefore they should be on the same sheet.
​

​You are right basically. But Krause is in terrible mess sometimes with their own numbering, so referees have pretty much freedom in these decisions.

Hello, Jarek!

You want to say that this second coin sheet (without photo) all this time existed? and I just missed (haven't seen) it?
Or it was just now created?

I have just checked and it was created on 3rd September.

Then it's certainly unfortunate misunderstanding! Sorry!!

It was the result of coincidence of 3 factors:
I looked for my coin without triskeles. But the "right" coin sheet hadn't photos.
I missed it because I found my coin in the "wrong" (united) coin sheet.
Moreover, rejections of the referee weren't followed by correct explanations, his notes looked inappropriate!

To the referee I want to say that he should pay more attention to his notes under rejections! He is from United States, so I think he knows English!

Anyway I apologize for this misunderstanding!

Regards, Victor

A coin with the addition of several triskeles is different enough from the coin without the triskeles. This is not a variety, it is a completely different master die. It will have a completely different listing.

And while I am sorry that Victor has hurt feelings, part of the reason I was brief in response to him, is the tiny space to write back reasons for rejection.

Absolutely nothing wrong with my use and understanding of english.

Heads up, I have also corrected penny listings, 5 pence, 10, possibly 20, and 50 pence to correct for the two types of coins, one with and one without triskeles.

Jarcek has explained the process to me (had to tell me twice because of my english) so that I can ask to move a collection item.

This is not an issue with a slight design variation, or of a font, or a die letter or mm that have travelled. This is a coin that has additional design elements. I am guessing that it should have had its own listing way prior to my becoming the ref.

I was surprised when Jarcek told me about the drama around this issue.

Just to be clear, I agree with Victor, one sheet for these two different types is wrong. Which is why I created an additional listing. In fact, I would hope he would resubmit photos for the correct listing. The original combined listing is going to be rewritten as one of the two types, the new listing will be the other type. And now that they are fixed by Jarcek, they can be cleaned up further. Thanks for your assistance. Sorry for my english.