2 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions are very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.

In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of

I'm aware of a previous question herehere, which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).

This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, "Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?", with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.

Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.

And, sincerely, saying that this community is "broken" and "analphabete", when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends.

To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions are very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.

In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of

I'm aware of a previous question here, which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).

This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, "Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?", with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.

Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.

And, sincerely, saying that this community is "broken" and "analphabete", when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends.

To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions are very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.

In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of

I'm aware of a previous question here, which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).

This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, "Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?", with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.

Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.

And, sincerely, saying that this community is "broken" and "analphabete", when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends.

1
source | link

To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions are very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.

In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of

I'm aware of a previous question here, which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).

This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, "Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?", with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.

Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.

And, sincerely, saying that this community is "broken" and "analphabete", when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends.