You are mistaken The article was about the internet release of an episode of Merlin The articles 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  million viewers does not do this show justice