User talk:Caparn

Re: Quantitative easing
I have replied to you on the talkpage, which would also serve as the place to leave your reply, naturally. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Quantitative easing
Maybe you could reply on the talkpage? I was beginning to lose the faith. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.]

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Quantitative easing appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. LK (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please stop the edit warring at Quantitative easing. You have reverted edits on the article more than three times the last 24 hours and do therefore risk getting blocked for this activity (see WP:3RR).TheFreeloader (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative easing article and edit-warring
If you didn't know, Wikipedia has a very strict policy about edit-warring, or multiple reverts to your preferred version of an article. Simply put - don't do it, or you will end up blocked. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you edit war, you get blocked. You need to use the article talk page to discuss the changes. Please read the WP:3RR policy on reverting/edit-warring. Just today, here are the reverts you made to the article -, , and. Those alone are enough for a block for this. Please stop. Use the talk page. Get concensus. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added this to your user page initially, not your user_talk page. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response on my talk page, but you need to understand that on the edit-war noticeboard, that doesn't matter. Seriously, it doesn't.  You made multiple reverts to your preferred version.  It really is that simple - you need to not do that in the future.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on other user's talk pages
Please do NOT edit war and repost you message on other user's talk pages once they have been removed. I have twice politely asked you to make your comments about article edits on the article talk page. Once a user has removed a message from their talk page, it is impolite to repost it there, especially when the user has already asked you not to do so. Note that politeness is a fundamental policy for Wikipedia, and we all edit here only as long as we can follow policy. LK (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring on my talk page. LK (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not edit warring but just carrying on of a valid discussion. Your talk page is for talk. I can now only assume you deleted my comment from your talk page as you feel you have lost the argument/discussion. --Caparn (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference here is a copy of the conversation including the part you deleted:

I noticed you undid my revision about the reversal of quantitative easing saying it was 'POV' and 'unreferenced'. This is simply not true, the reference is the BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7924506.stm which states "Theoretically, when the economy has recovered, the Bank of England sells the bonds it has bought and destroys the cash it receives. That means in the long term there has been no extra cash created." So destroying the money is referenced and the theoretical part implies it has never been reversed anywhere which it never has so was a true statement. Perhaps when you undo someones revision you should not make up the reasons why you are undoing them. Your explanation simply was untrue and you blatantly ignored the reference on the article. I will give you the opportunity to edit the article to keep these points in before I undo your edit. --Caparn (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because one source uses POV langauge does not mean that wikipedia should. You should stop referencing one BBC opinion piece as if it were the bible. Also, let's keep the talk about articles on the article talk page please. LK (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on now LK, try pulling the other one, this is not a POV article but an article by the BBC who are generally acknowledged to be reputable journalists and have to have their articles authorised by several people before they are allowed to be published. If I went around deleting everything because I felt like it and there was only one reference I could probably delete half the paragraphs on wikipedia. I think you are letting your own POV dominate your edits. The comment is also fairly obvious; if you agree that the money is created in the first place for QE then it would have to be destroyed after the bonds were bought back to reverse the process. Surely this is nothing more than common sense? --Caparn (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

--Caparn (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A Mathematician&
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of A Mathematician&, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/print.asp?isbn=9780521337021&amp;print=y.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please note that per WP:BRD, those who wish to add material to an article should not continue to do so after an objection has been raised, regardless of whether they themselves think the edit is justified through adequate sourcing or otherwise. Continually re-adding something over the objections of others is Edit Warring, and is aginst policy. Seek consensus on the talk page for any controversial contributions. LK (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes I made were reverting your deletions, the items you deleted have been in the article for months and thoroughly discussed on the talk page of QE already. I think it's your turn to explain why you would wish to delete any of the items that have already been discussed and accepted and I will willingly discuss them with you on the QE talk page. --Caparn (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing discussion
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi your latest edit is not so clear because the BOE refers to itself as 'the Bank', and you have changed the text to describe the central bank as the bank, where the first citation quotes 'the BankAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

money out of nothing
if gold is money or can be used as money, ie if you have gold you can effectively spend it, then the same is true of a government bond.

So if wealth in the economy is removed from the economy and stored and replaced with money then that is a liquidity and interest changing method.

However this argument does not apply to monetizing the debt created by new spending. New spending is simply out of thin air.

Similarly a helicopter drop of money would be out of thin air.

QE of existing assets is not out of thin air.

However for example when the feds began purchasing the agency mortgages new mortgages were also being created, so the wealth did not already exist for all the mortgages purchased in that program.

QE is therefore partly out of thin air and partly not. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Edit warring
I ish to remind you that continually reverting to your version against the consensus of everyone else on the talk page is edit warring. I highly suggest that you self revert or remove the material from the page, otherwise you are breaking WP:3RR. LK (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A complaint about you has been filed at WP:AN3
Please see WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will agree to stop reverting at Quantitative easing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incongruity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)