The reason I attacked Werner's article is that he mystifies money creation and perpetuates the misconception that banks' ability to create money is similar to central banks' ability to create money (he does not directly say so, but a non expert reader is likely to gain this misunderstanding when he uses terms like "fairy dust" etc.).
In the article I attacked 2 specific claims of Werner. One was patently false. The other was correct due to a technicality only.
Although "technically" I agree with your article, banks have a legal definition, legal power and legal responsibility. That makes them special and gives them the legal power to create money -- not without limits, though. Banks can -- subject to some rules -- borrow money from the central bank, which will create said money for them. With repo rates hovering zero and all processing happening electronically, "out of thin air" is not really that far from reality. :)
I would argue that if I issue you an IOU, that is not real money: I do not hold a banking license, I do not keep track of all IOUs, I have no audit to pass once-a-year. In fact, I might drink away your deposited cash next day. :) The Full Tilt Poker example is relevant, but I would argue that that is illegal banking: It happens, but it really shouldn't. Wirecard is the other extreme: They were a bank (legally) and created money against the rules (I'm a bit oversimplifying).
I guess the common person needs to be educated about legal powers: For example, what makes this house special that I own it? A large enough hammer can open the door, as easily as my keys. In fact, if I sublet it, I might not even have the keys! Ownership, as money, are legal constructs that only hold value if they are properly enforced. Of course, enforcement is easier the more society accepts the construct.