User talk:Rawjapan

Welcome!

Hello, Rawjapan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rawjapan, thanks very much for the good improvements you made to the Currency war article. Just as a minor point, as there are plans to promote Currency war to Good article status, if you add references to a TV appearance, could you ideally add the date and name of the program so the reference can be verified? Best wishes FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Strategic bombing of civilians

I reverted your changes to Aerial bombing of cities and Strategic bombing during World War II because you put a non-neutral spin on the events, mixed with what appears to me to be original research. Without cites, you rewrote it so that Germany looked good and Britain looked bad. Per WP:NOR, I removed your contributions. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think neglecting to mention the fact that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland, together with Germany, is more objective? Obviously, your viewpoint is spin. Both Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland, but Churchill declared war on Germany and allied itself with the Soviet Union, and never demanded it leaves occupied Polish territories. That's why the Soviet occupied part of Poland has remained non-Polish until this day. Do you want to hear a Pole talk about this? I think just presenting the UK viewpoint to the world is not what can be called 'objective'. If the factual reality makes Germany look better than in British propaganda, what can we do? Change the facts is impossible, so let's instead hide the facts...? That seems to be your attitude.

Rawjapan (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Let's begin with Prime Minister Chamberlain declaring war, not Churchill. Your assessment of history is flawed, and does not match expert sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You are of course right, it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany and allied Britain to the Soviet Union. But it is known that this was the policy Churchill had been proposing, and pursued from day one of taking office in May 1940 by starting bombing of civilians in Germany.

Why don't you respond to the points I raised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawjapan (talk • contribs)

I accept that you are an expert in Japanese banking, but I do not accept your expertise in World War Two global dynamics. At Strategic bombing during World War II and Aerial bombing of cities we go by reliable, verifiable sources such as Hooten and Boog. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Richard Werner, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Prof Richard Werner

Hi if you find any of your edits on Richard Werner are deleted, if you let me know, and i agree your edit is fine, i will help you get it reinstated. I am having particularly difficulties with certain editors who seem to think that modern banking practices are fringe.

By the way i managed to get the utube video of Richard into the fractional reserve banking page.

Cheers

Andrew Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Dear Andrew, Many thanks. Could you please get the previous version rawjapan instated? That would be very helpful indeed.

Many thanks and warm regards, rawajapn

I just noticed it was removed. Unfortunately user LK has plenty of associates to create trouble. I will see what can be achieved. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Quantitative easing

Hello Rawjapan. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

COI editing

It appears that you are either Richard Werner or closely associated with him, as this account is a single purpose account used to soapbox his supposed importance. Please do not continue pushing Richard Werner as doing so is a breach of our policies on conflict of interest LK (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ten years later, you still seem to be inserting UNDUE references to papers by and about Wener. This kind of content and sourcing will not remain in the articles. You should use the article talk page to gain consensus for any edit of yours that may have been reverted by another editor.@Lawrencekhoo: SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

COI warning

Your username and your editing patterns very strongly suggest that you are Richard A. Werner or his representative. As such, our policies and guidelines prohibit you from editing articles in such a way as to either promote him or his work. Additionally, you should not edit the Wikipedia article on Richard Werner. Relevant policies include: WP:PROMOTION, WP:COISELF, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:SELFCITE. LK (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Credit theory of money may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to avoid the 'recurring banking crises' and how to stimulate economies after severe banking crises (making use of Werner's policy concept of ''[[quantitative easing]]'', which he proposed in Japan in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello Rawjapan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Rawjapan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rawjapan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not being paid for my edits. You are quite ridiculous in suggesting so. What is the "product" you claim I am promoting? You seem to have a lot of time at hand. I, unlike you, am dedicated to public education and have made many sacrifices for that. Rawjapan (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

All of your editing activity has been promoting Richard Werner ‎and his books. You've got to stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr OLLIIE you are ensuring that Wikipedia is incorrect concerning Quantitative Easing. I corrected falsehoods. Moreover, the section on the history needs to state where the term was actually historically presented - why do you delete the reference to the original historical article in the Nikkei of 2 September 1995 where it was prominently presented as a new policy proposal? What right do you think you have to hide this fact from the reader? Why do you promote the falsehood that QE was introduced on 19 March 2001, when the official announcement by the Bank of Japan said no such thing, had no words "quantitative easing" in it? Where is the evidence that it was actually adopting this policy on this day? The reader needs to hear this. You are hiding the truth. Rawjapan (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You added self promotional spam. Stop. You have been warned about this many times, it is time to start respecting Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The history section of QE is there to tell people about the history of QE. Why is this so hard to understand for you? Why is my original proposal of a monetary policy that I called QE, published in the largest Japanese financial newspaper, not allowed to be quoted in a history of QE? You have no rational argument. State your case. What is your case? Rawjapan (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is there to reflect what is in the reliable, independent, secondary sources. It is not a place to add your own thoughts and opinions. If you want to make a point you must cite a secondary source - and one that was written without your involvement. And since you have an obvious conflict of interest in this matter, you should be making that proposal on the article's associated talk page - not continuing to edit the article yourself. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)