You are mistaken. The article was about the internet release of an episode of Merlin. The article's purpose it to announce the release, discuss its quality, and discuss the episode itself. You are mistaken in interpreting it as a links database. Again, the link was not to a site hosting illegal content, but to one featuring an article regarding an episode. In the comments for the article, links to content of questionable legal status were posted. So, at best there are two degrees of separation between what I wrote in the talk page for Merlin and the content in question. My intent was not to advertise. I honestly wanted to illustrate what I meant by online excitement for the show. The editor that has attempted to dispute this does not understand my intentions despite multiple attempts to explain it to him or her. If you are in fact that same editor, then I thank you for finally signing in. Again after reviewing the policy page you provided me with, I can say again that what I have done is not a violation. It is not a torrent site as you like to say. Regardless, I think we have finally come to a compromise on the situation. I would like the posts to remain unchanged as my inquiry into online viewership is a legitimate one and one that if answered could improve the quality of the article. 6 million viewers does not do this show justice.