This question about an image and how it was created surprisingly (to me) caused the photographer Brian to answer the question himself. As can be seen in the edit history, he later reduced his answer to a minimum and rage quit.
I upvoted the original answer, but had no time to comment. When I came back to it, it already happened:
Brian's (assuming he's the real one) answer is very different from the assumptions I made in mine. After all, if he took that image, there cannot be a more correct answer. I think everybody agrees that a contribution from the original creator of the work is very valuable information.
Brian added some social media links to his answer. I think the thought process was "They use my image, so I give them some information and get a bit of exposure for my work in return"
Turns out we don't like that. With the benefit for him out, so went Brian.
Should we really value rules over content and the individual members? I had a new question in mind based on Brian's original answer, which I'm not going to ask now, because the best source of information is gone.
I for one rather see some promotional links in an excellent answer than not seeing the answer at all.
To be clear: I don't think damned truths did anything wrong and Brian sure overreacted a bit. The overall situation appears to be unpleasant for everybody and I wonder how we can avoid it in the future.
hyperbolic question: When the dead will walk the earth on judgement day and Ansel Adams creates an account to answer a question, with a link to one of his books, will we reject that as promotional?