"

 Moved from Montanabw talk 
(Moved here by Montanabw so all active editors may participate in the discussion)
Hi Montanabw!

I followed your recommendation and read all the page Wikipedia:External_links and didn't find the case of regarding the edition I did to the value Melbourne Cup.

Please tell me which point is the one that you think that aplies here. 

Besides that, as I already stated, the text and the picture are high quality and very relevant to the value. I don't understand what's going on.

Waiting for your reply,

Regards,
  Sebastiansta

As other editors have been trying to explain to you, we have no need for an enormous diagram of disproportionate size, particularly when it appears to be copyrighted, and it is not properly sourced by using a spamlink to a commercial site.  Please read WP:NOADS and take further discussion to the article talk page.  (talk) 

I removed the diagram again...it was taking up way too much space and looked copy-pasted from somewhere else.  (Neigh) White Arabian mare

Let's take this to the article talk page, or that of the user.  (talk) 

Hi,

I will address what you said:

1. You are using a copyrighted image: I Have permission to use it. Also there is no copyright over the image (in fact, I will citate you: ""it appears to be copyrighted"")
2.You are using a for-profit betting site as a source: There is a lot of for-profit betting sites as resources. In fact many of the big bookmakers have their own article in Wikipedia: William Hill (bookmaker). As you may know, they are legal companies (you might like them or not, but that is your personal issue)
4. and the material is not necessary for the article: The material is just for the article. Is the race course of the race.....

If the issue is the image size, we can talk about that, but the issue seems different here.

The other editor didn't explain to me anything. Just remove the material. 

Please, just objective facts, not a lot of: appears to, seems to, intention to.

Is there any big editor's authority? I think that this exceeds already the common sense.

  Sebastiansta

You uploaded the image as your own work, that alone qualifies as a copyright violation; only the owner of the image has the authority to release copyright, via the WP:OTRS system.  It is irrelevant that William Hill has a WP article, it does not make their web page a reliable source for info about the track, and furthermore, that information is more appropriate for the article about the track, not this race.  The ""big editor authority"" are the policies and guidelines of wikipedia that I have already posted to you at your talk page.  The image is out and the text you tried to add (which is also close to a copyvio because you've pretty much just rephrased what is said at the link you cited) is also out.  Furthermore, as your primary edits seem to be to the William Hill page and this one, I suspect you also work for that company and may therefore fall under the conflict of interest rules here or are engaging in paid advocacy, which is also subject to restrictions, noted here:  WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE.  Now, please drop the issue; two experienced editors have told you this is not permissible and why - repeatedly.  (talk) "