Talk:Sabbath mode

message: How is the random delay any different from, say, striking a poor-quality match that may not light on the first try or ever? --NE2 11:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delay 

message: Similar topics and Shabbat module's sources are all failed verification. Hyacinth (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of merging this article into Shabbat module or visa versa. But what do you mean that the sources "are all failed verification"? I checked a few of them, and found them to be in support of the content of the article. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Shabbat module. Hyacinth (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I commented there to answer your questions. I now think that the merge should indeed be as you proposed it, Shabbat module into Sabbath mode. Debresser (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: [[Shabbat module]] 

message: I've reverted this edit and wanted to explain why. The term "observant Jews" is not an encyclopedic term and doesn't belong in this article. The term is not precisely defined by anyone. Obviously many "observant" Jews do not keep an Orthodox shabbat -- for example, there are observant Reform Jews who do many of those activities on the Sabbath (see an example here: ). Using "many Jews" avoids the problem of trying to define what an "observant Shabbat" is; same with trying to define what "Halakha" is or is not (even if you may have very strong opinions on what Halakhah is). Secondly, there's no issue with adding citation needed tags and the refimprove tag. They're very often used together and there's no reason to remove the template. Please add reliable sources before removing the template. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already explained why the template should be removed in this edit summary. I understand your point about the term "observant Jews", even if I don't agree with it. I had already changed this to something more precise in this edit. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for commenting here. It would have been preferable for you to comment before once again reverting content. I don't think your edit summary is at all adequate to explain the editing you're doing. First of all, if you would read the BRD page, you'd see it says "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." You haven't done that, and you are also missing the "discuss" part of BRD, as in discuss it here on the talk page. Please provide a reason for why you disagree with my points before reverting the page to your preferred status. You don't WP:OWN the page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been there so many time... I don't use BRD as a reason to revert. The reasons are what I wrote from the beginning. I reminded you of BRD so that you;d understand that as the editor trying to introduce a change, the burden of proof that your change is a good idea is on you. In any case, you have not commented on my objections, so I suppose you agree with my points. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Why no discussion of the thousands of people who inadvertently get placed into Sabbath mode on their electric appliances and have no way to override it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.90.183 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Is this a serious post? Debresser (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue