@BillDubuque By far, most of my votes to close and to delete a post are about recent posts, but sometimes I take a look at old posts. There are lots of old PSQs that should be closed or deleted. But I am not targeting any individual user.
@JoséCarlosSantos I don't understand your issue with 7. The OP was clearly engaging with the comments, and added in what they tried after they were asked to. It was originally a PSQ, but was edited to show a reasonable attempt.
@user1729 Since the statement is so simple and since the OP was given a good and reasonable hint (check all cases), I think that this was a display of lazyness. But I do agree that there was effort from the OP. If the question gets undeleted, I will not try to delete it again.
@user1729 Question 7, as it is currently written, is not a good question. It is a problem statement together with the phrase "I tried [stuff]," where [stuff] is not described, but not actually done in the question. That question should be deleted.
Yes, there is additional context provided in the comments. However, one should not have to read the comments to get that context. It is possible that the question could be molded into a good question if someone were to edit that context into the question. If you think that the question is worth preserving, perhaps it is worth your time to make those edits?
@JoséCarlosSantos It looks a lot like targeted voting. And the target was one of your biggest critics here, e.g. she wrote: "I'm also getting ticked off with Jose Carlos Santos and his apparent attraction to answering such poor questions" and "Argh!!! Frustrated more with the answerer than even the asker [...] I wrote a comment to Jose (the answerer), but I don't know how long it will last, because rep-hounds seem to be the biggest babies to flag, or come to meta to whine." among many other critiques.
Why are your fishing through 5-year-old questions when many of the questions you currently answer have exactly the same deficits of those old questions? Why haven't you voted to delete any of those?
You are relatively new so likely have little knowledge of the site policies way back then. Consider an analogy. Suppose in the future some users are so fed up with hastily composed run-of-the-mill FGITW rep-hunting answers that they create a room like this to downvote and delete them. Maybe their quality standards require that answers not only be correct but also contain significant insight into the problem solving process (rare for FGITW answers due to time constraints).
Likely this would result in the deletion of many of your answers. What would you think about that? Would it be fair? Would it be good for the site?
@BillDubuque The remark about the change of policies around here makes sense. But I have no idea about what you have in mind when you mention questions to which I answer which are as bad the ones that I vote to close. Yes, for a long time, I used to answer to near everything, but I have not done that for quite a while (or so I hope).
@JoséCarlosSantos In my opinion many of the recent questions you answer do not meet the policies of many in this this room and share the same deficits as those your are proposing for deletion. Have you ever voted to delete any question you answered?
Or do you apply those policies only to other users?
No, the change in color is barely visible on my screen (poor UI design)
There are many more like that. Why don't I see them in your proposed questions for deletion? Don't you agree that it looks fishy that instead I see lists of many very-old questions by someone who was highly critical of you?
I hope that there aren't many more like that. Anyway, you asked whether I have ever voted to delete any question that I answered to and I proved that I did (by the way, there are others).
I was after old PSQs, that's all. And I wouldn't call an answer with 4 upvotes (I mean the last one that I linked yesterday) a highly-voted answer. If you think that my behaviour is inappropriate, what you should do is to inform the moderators. I am leaving this discussion.
@JoséCarlosSantos Your most recent list had 3 out 4 questions containing her posts (geeting bolder eh?). I looked further back and all of your recent lists of 4 posts have one or two of her (very old) answers, many with highly voted answers, e.g. this 6-year-old answer with 14 upvotes. Do you seriously expect me to believe this is pure coinicdence?
@user1729 It is also a duplicate of this question, which is better phrased. I find the non-accepted answer to be more useful, too (neither of the answer to the deleted question are, in my opinion, all that great).
reopen? – This question was closed as a duplicate of this older question. However, the newer question asks for less (determine p'(0) from a functional equation), whereas the older question asks for the general solution of that equation. OP also asks for a more “elementary” solution of this reduced problem.
I do not know if a simple solution to the simpler question exist (at least one comment indicates it), but I would suggest to reopen the question.
@Servaes: Related (and perhaps useful), but not necessarily a duplicate. There might be an easier proof of $p`(0)=1$, without showing first that $p(x)=x$ is the only solution. — Martin Ryesterday