A few days ago, I requested reference for TVMF. Unfortunately, this question was downvoted without a reason specified giving no space to improve and inappropriately making the question potentially useless. I would like to discuss if I should delete and re-ask the said question. (would this be a violation of any policy?)

The currently marked duplicate has this answer which addresses on how to get attention on a question. It does not answer my question because mine is a "reference request" and besides that, I am asking whether I should refrain from posting another reference request (primarily because it has downvotes and it has been marked a duplicate without a proper notification!) or just delete the post and ask a new one.

And right before I am told that a specific reference should have been tagged with [specific-reference] and not [reference-request], one must know that I had previously kept that tag but it was removed on suggestion in meta.

  • $\begingroup$ This is a discussion request about a specific question. That too, the marked duplicate dont even attempt to answer the question. Secondly, I didnt receive a notification regarding "does this answer your question" $\endgroup$
    – Dorothea
    Sep 1, 2020 at 11:43
  • $\begingroup$ why not explain how the suggested links do not answer your question (both on main and on meta)? $\endgroup$ Sep 2, 2020 at 4:16
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero The discussion request wasn't even read thoroughly and marked on the basis of the title. The discussion is over I suppose. $\endgroup$
    – Dorothea
    Sep 2, 2020 at 8:05
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Marking a question as a duplicate doesn't mean the discussion is over. It does mean that, if you want your question to be answered, you need to clarify what it's asking that isn't covered by the "original" question(s) (the ones linked in the blue box above). You're welcome to make some edits which will hopefully convince people with the vote-to-reopen privilege that your question should be reopened, and you can ask for advice about how to do so here in the comments or in chat. (If you don't choose to take that opportunity, then I suppose the discussion is over....) $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Sep 6, 2020 at 3:19
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZ updated with the information $\endgroup$
    – Dorothea
    Sep 6, 2020 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ @AnindyaPrithvi, just to clarify: there is no need to give the asker a forewarning before closing a question as a duplicate. The "Does this answer your question?" comment that you mentioned only appears when someone flags the question as a duplicate. $\endgroup$
    – Urb
    Sep 7, 2020 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Urb and someone duping without a warning may not be a mod? $\endgroup$
    – Dorothea
    Sep 7, 2020 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To clarify what happened here, your question was not closed by a moderator; instead, it was closed with a single vote via the 'dupehammer' mechanism, i.e., my vote closed it because I hold a gold tag badge for a relevant tag. (This is explained if you mouse-over the tag after my name in the 'closed by' attribution.) This is never done lightly, and we always take the time to explain what is the problem with the question and what steps can be taken to reopen it. $\endgroup$ Sep 22, 2020 at 15:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the question at issue, as explained, there is nothing specific to time-varying magnetic fields that is not already covered in general electromagnetism textbooks, so you are expected to go to those first. (In your language, it's like asking for resources about the sine function and getting directed to books about trigonometry. That's because there are no books about only the sine function.) I don't see any reason why your question cannot be reopened if you actually put in the work to do so, which starts by looking at the standard EM resources and explaining why they are insufficient. $\endgroup$ Sep 22, 2020 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty I understand your point(about asking about sine in trigonometry)...I don't know how I can sum up better than what I had already but I'll try to in sometime, thanks for your inputs $\endgroup$
    – Dorothea
    Sep 22, 2020 at 17:30