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