If you read the OP's answers, many or most of those answers don't include links at all.
Of the answers which do contain links, for example this one and this one, many of those links are to specific topics on on the
mahamevnawa.com web site. Those links and answers are not deleted because they're on-topic: the links support the answer and the answer tries to address the question.
On October 30th I edited most of the OP's answers, to remove "a signature" like this one which were at the end of every answer. Those links are not on-topic (i.e. not part of the answer) because they're generic link to the top-level http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish URL (not a link to any specific article).
I also posted comments, here and here and here, and other comments which I deleted after they were read, to try to explain what what our site policy is for links:
Please don't post links to http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/ except in your profile. You can post links to specific pages or articles or resources within the mahamevnawa.lk site, if the page is relevant to the question and your answer.
The rule about using a generic "signature" in answers for advertising is a network-wide policy -- this FAQ topic says:
In general, taglines and signatures are strongly discouraged, and are likely to be edited out. We don't want to clutter up the questions page with a lot of redundant signature blocks and taglines and so forth.
Please use your built in profile, avatar, and username as your signature; that's what they are there for, and every post you make is already "signed" this way!
In the topic which you're asking about here, the historic sequence of events was as follows:
- OP posted this answer with links to http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/dhamma-talks/ and his blog:
I posted a comment asking for specific links which address the question, and deleted the answer
- OP posted this answer with specific links, and a link to his blog, again:
I posted a comment again, asking for specific links (instead of a link to the whole blog), this time Lanka deleted the answer
- You saw and wanted to preserve the specific links in the deleted answer:
we undeleted the answer but deleted the link to the blog.
Lanka wrote, in his answer,
I deleted the post because there was a link to the users personal blog. Promotion of ones own work should not be done on this site.
This doesn't mean you're not allowed to link to your own posts off-site. It means that you're allowed to do that, if and only when the links you post are an answer to the question.
Specific links which answer the question are on topic (and may be up- or down-voted as usual depending on their quality, i.e. depending on whether users think they're helpful).
Generic links, by definition, don't answer the question: they are deleted, especially when they only "promote" (i.e. advertise) the site or the blog in question.
In your question, you wrote,
This might not be directly compatible with the lineage of Mahasi Sayadaw from the lineage the moderator who deleted the post is from, though the previous post by the same OP does not meet the requirements of the question though this post does.
I hope you understand why the post was deleted: it was because of the "generic" link to the blog, not because of the "specific" links to the MP3 files.
I assume most people want to read specific questions and answers on this site, not "promotional" advertising.
I sorry if you assumed that the deletion was all to do with "lineage". The site's defined policy is that this site is for "all schools of Buddhism"; and I hope that all users (including moderators) behave accordingly.
There are always several moderators who review the site. There are also high-reputation users, like you and Robin and 20 other users, who have a reputation of over 2000, who can view deleted posts to ensure that nothing is deleted maliciously or by mistake.
One of the reason why I think we ought to delete "promotional" links is in order to try to keep the site looking welcoming to people and to questions and answers from all schools: I think it's better to have no "promotional advertising" than to flood the site with advertisements for one specific site or school.
I'm also a bit uneasy about discussing moderation in too much detail. Moderators are meant to intervene if there's a problem, so discussing moderation means discussing problems, and if people learn from past discussion and move on then I'd prefer to not, you know, pick over old problems again.
The Help for your "Viewing deleted posts" privilege says,
Viewing deleted posts
You now have privileged access to posts that have been removed, either
by their authors, by users with access to moderator tools, by
moderators, or by the system.
Use this privilege wisely:
Make sure what is being deleted should have been deleted, and bring unnecessary or harmful deletions to the attention of the community
and/or moderator team.
Watch for signs of abuse being obscured by deletion.
Don't abuse this privilege to stir up trouble when someone has wisely decided to remove a problematic post.
You're welcome to clarify site policy but my experience (including some years of experience as a user on other SE sites) tells me that it's basically never beneficial to accuse a moderator of misconduct.
Does it reassure you to be told that other moderators already review and discuss each other's actions?
Questions like "why was this answer deleted?" and "what is site policy?" are on-topic. Thank you for using meta to discuss that: and I'm glad that you're satisfied with the outcome.