User talk:Patrick Garway

January 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 10 Downing Street, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You were also duplicating most of the existing first paragraph. David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Patrick Garway! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I was clear about which were and were not minor edits as my main addition was not declared as a minor edit. No need to infer I'm a vandal. Would a vandal write like that? Patrick Garway (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how the duplication happened, but I noticed it and deleted it, as you can see Here is the source, a FOI request, see pdf at bottom of page.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_owns_10_downing_street

WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER. JUST LEAVE IT TO BORES LIKE YOU.

Patrick Garway (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please reply to my points Biddulph. My addition about who owns 10 Downing Street can now have a citation.You can restore my text and add a citation to the FOI request with its pdf letter at the foot of the link. In light of the current public interest in improvements to 10 Downing Street, there is confusion about who owns it, hence my addition of accurate information. Patrick Garway (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot add a footnote so I will not insert my text. Here is both the body text and footnote text.

BODY TEXT 10 Downing Street is Government property. Its registered legal title is held in the name of Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the Secretary of State is a corporation sole).

FOOTNOTE TEXT See Cabinet Office letter dated 9 October 2018 in response to Freedom of Information request of 11 September 2018 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_owns_10_downing_street) Patrick Garway (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now entered the above text and citation on the page. Patrick Garway (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Brexit changes
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Brexit. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Jr8825  •  Talk  15:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

1—There's little we can do about poor judgement calls by people such as yourself and who have power over citizen contributors who try to bring clarity to such utter messes as Wikipedia's Brexit page. 2—Thanks for confirming why I don't believe Wikipedia deserves to receive any donations from people like me. Patrick Garway (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Patrick, I undid your edits because your changes added factually wrong information. You were right that the lead was poorly written, and I appreciate you were trying to make things more clear. I've now tried to improve it, and you can see the new version if you revisit the page. You might find this BBC explainer helps to clarify things regarding when the UK left the EU (it was the end of 2020). Wikipedia has strict policies on providing verification for information that is added and avoiding your personal understandings of issues – they're necessarily strict because they help ensure the accuracy of the information we provide. I'm sorry for the stern warning, but as you're autoconfirmed your changes (which added incorrect information in the lead of a heavily visited article) were staying live for several hours, and re-adding contested edits is considered disruptive. However, I hope you can see that despite this, your concerns have helped to produce a clearer article lead. The next time you're in a similar situation (and not 100% sure about the technical details, or have been reverted by another editor) the best option is to leave a message on the article talk page for other editors. This will probably fix things quicker. We're all citizen contributors, just like you. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dispute Resolution"

It's not the UN for God's sake. Patrick Garway (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

They are NOT, that is NOT, factually wrong. Now I really wish you'd left my text to stand because you're another taken in by the endless confusion over when the United Kingdom really became fully separate from the EU bloc, as I clarified well: 1 January 2021 and no earlier. This is factually correct. It was more than simply when the Treaties of the European Union no longer applied. It's more subtle than that crude interpretation. Patrick Garway (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think what you've written is very good. It introduces unnecessary points. By the way, it became official policy of HM Government to refer to "implementation period" not "transition period" under the Withdrawal Agreement. Goodbye. I certainly won't be doing this again. It's bonkers. Patrick Garway (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would go to the Institute for Government as a much sharper analysis than the BBC. They even highlight the same point I make above about terminology around "transition period" vs. "implementation period"

Here's an example of their superior analysis of this: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-transition-period Patrick Garway (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to post my text, now revised, for the record, as I believe a bold and clear statement about when the UK was fully outside the EU bloc is still needed. "When did Brexit start,?", and similar queries, are top Brexit searches on Google and Wikipedia should provide the answer. Here is my revised text for the record:

The UK became fully outside the EU bloc after midnight (Brussels time) on 1 January 2021. Having withdrawn from the Treaties of the European Union on 31 January 2020, the implementation period under the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement began. During the implementation period (also known as transition period) the UK had not fully left the EU. This is because the UK remained a member of the European Single Market and the EU Customs Union and many EU rules and laws continued fully to apply as if the UK were still a Member State. The implementation period under the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement ended at midnight, Brussels time, on 31 December 2020 and on 1 January 2021 the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement began to apply provisionally (took effect in practice). It entered into force on 1 May 2021 following ratification. Patrick Garway (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussing article content here on your talk page will achieve little as other editors won't see it. The best venue is Talk:Brexit, I suggest you open a thread there and discuss with other editors. That way you'll be able to gauge support for your text before putting it forward. Jr8825  •  Talk  05:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)