I thought this topic had been beaten to death, and that I was operating within the limits of established policy:
It's been a couple of years since we last talked about this, so let's review the conclusion of the last discussion... And the aftermath.
The first thing you should've taken away from that discussion was the realization that this practice is extremely controversial - out of all the responses, those that received the most support were those that attempted some form of compromise.
The second thing you should've picked up on was the widespread belief that answers should actually answer the question. This was, perhaps, somewhat more subtle, as I suspect some of the folks participating in that discussion found it difficult to wrap their heads around the idea that this wouldn't simply be assumed. And yet, seeing answers that seem to exist purely to weave a tenuous connection between your work and the asker's request into an opportunity for promotion makes it harder to defend either your practices or intentions.
And the last thing you should've noticed was that Jeff's compromise solution, now ensconced in the FAQ of every single site on the network, leads off with:
Be careful, because the community frowns on overt self-promotion and tends to vote it down and flag it as spam.
Read that carefully: there is no safe harbor for self-promotion on Stack Overflow. All of the deleted answers you linked to received multiple flags. Maybe some of them shouldn't have been deleted. I suspect you could make a few edits and see some of them restored - but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
While you may have considered the conclusion a done deal, tweaked your wording slightly and moved on, for the other members and moderators on Stack Overflow the fallout has been an ongoing battle.
I can't count the number of times one of us has had to explain to a vendor, via moderator messages or email, why searching for keywords and then dropping answers in with links to their product is unacceptable - even with full disclosure. In extreme cases, we've had to blacklist entire domains due to persistent abuse. That's bad - it shouldn't come to the point of having to block all mention of a product or organization just to stop it from being tirelessly plugged in contexts where it isn't useful.
So we try to work with folks who, like you, have valuable knowledge and experience to share, and who might occasionally be justified in sharing links to what they're working on as part of this process.
It can be a lot of work. But I honestly believe it's the best solution for everyone involved. So I must ask, respectfully, that you
PLEASE DO NOT RUIN THIS FOR EVERYONE BY CONTINUING TO STRETCH THE RULES ESTABLISHED BY COMMUNITY CONSENSUS TO THEIR BREAKING POINT!
If you haven't already noticed, you have fewer defenders here this time. After two years and numerous opportunities to alter the perception of your work here, the majority of your answers still link to your own site(s), and you're still posting answers that can only be charitably said to have a tangential connection to the question they're answering.
This is really up to you. No one is going to grant you immunity from flagging. The moderators can and sometimes do choose to dismiss them without action, but you're wearing their patience thin as well. Two years ago, you could claim ignorance - that doesn't fly now. You know good and well what's causing this - you can either fix it, or deal with the fallout from it.