text:
User talk:Oliver Pereira/Archive 3

Don't like the word octothorpe? That's okay. I didn't like it much either. ;) Phil Bordelon 05:20 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I hadn't even heard of it until I read it in the Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago! -- Oliver P. 05:23 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * There's a band by the name, and my Python teacher used it all the freaking time, much to everyone's consternation. My use of it was more inside joke than anything.  I changed 'hash sign' to just 'hash', since Unicode likes it more, and it's in more common usage (at least here in Louisiana).  No chance you play Tanbo, or did you just pick it as a good page to Extreme Wiki on? ;) Phil Bordelon 05:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, okay. I call it a "hash sign", but I don't really know if that's standard anywhere in particular. As for playing Tanbo, sorry, but no, I just picked a new page from "Recent changes" at random to pointlessly fiddle with, as a way of avoiding what I'm supposed to be doing. Maybe I should have taken up Tanbo as a way of avoiding what I'm supposed to be doing, but that would have taken longer... ;) -- Oliver P. 05:37 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We in Ireland call it a hash sign too, hash being something one smokes, not presses. BTW Oliver, I put some more info on Sinead O'Connor on her talk page. You might enjoy it! :-) User:Jtdirl

 * Yep, I've just read it. Nice story. :) -- Oliver P. 05:52 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, hell, may as well call it a 'number sign' and be done with it. Fixing. ;) Phil Bordelon 05:55 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, but I chose not to call it a number sign because that's... American, isn't it? Clearly the correct way to show a number is with "No.". ;) -- Oliver P. 06:13 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I propose a new, non-national name for the symbol #: the 'ambiguous.' While its name may be, its title is not.  No more "What do you call that damn thing?"  Nay, the world will rally around such an obvious renaming, to be sure. Phil Bordelon 06:30 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the active Wikipedians links - I was going to do so... but then you'd already done it. Which was nice :) Martin

 * No problem. :) -- Oliver P. 18:07 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I finished my symphony!Pizza Puzzle

 * Symphony? What symphony? -- Oliver P. 18:19 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 <---Click me

Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your concern or your authority? The images I uploaded, contained no copyright declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate against me. Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law, but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine. Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck 14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * ''note: I've copied this to Joe Canuck's talk page, to keep everything together. I won't delete it because I know you don't approve of my cut&pasting activities... ;-) Martin 20:49 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Oliver but you are wrong re-Zoe, as is explained on the Votes for D page by myself and Tim. You are talking about the normal course of events. Zoe was dealing with an extreme case and in such a case many sysops do what she does. The behaviour of some vandals in some cases simply don't give the option of waiting a week. In some cases, rarely but they do happen, sysops have to immediately. I would have acted in a different manner (using a different power first) but Zoe's behaviour is perfectly understandable in the circumstancs she was dealing with, and it is grossly unfair to attack her for doing her job when her doing her job cuts down on the risk of wiki being closed down because of copyright breaches and so avoids your work (and mine and everyone elses) being summarily deleted with wiki's forced closure. If she didn't respond then all the work of all the contributors could be for nothing if one company who found their text had been placed on wiki went to court and got an immediate close down ordered, or one was ordered by Jimbo to protect his company. And saying that we were supposed to put it on a discussion page so people could chat about it for one week would be no defence. They would want to know what it was not removed immediately. This particular user continuously reinstated text that was 100% breach of copyright. In that situation Bomis and wiki would have been fucked in the event of any court case. Zoe correctly treated the situation as an emergency that needed immediate action. And she like many sysops did in that situation what sysops do in emergencies, react immediately by deletion. It can later be reinstated and undeleted, but at that moment she judged that to cover wiki it had to be deleted. And I would certainly defend her right to to what she would, as would many sysops. FearÉIREANN 06:32 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I can't see how there would be any legal problems. If someone actually made a complaint, we would remove the material as and when the complaint was made. I can't see any court ruling that the Wikipedia would have to be closed down after that. -- Oliver P. 06:43 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Nod. We're protected by having a designated agent which, IIRC, gives us 15 days to make an informed decision before taking material down. (but IANAL) Martin

Are you in need of fast cash? Do you feel like an inferior person because you are ridden by poverty? Your name has been suggested to us as an opt-in suscriber to receive INSTANT CASH via the wikiwikicredit system you can receive FREE MONEY simply by signing the form below. It doesn't matter if you have bad credit, GET GOOD CREDIT TODAY. To remove your name from this mailing list send an email to wedontcheckthisaccount@wespamyou.com

WikiCapitalism: A Message from Director Pizza Puzzle
Partly out of greed, and partly out of curiousity I will open the first wikibank. In order to maintain financial security and stability I call upon the wikigovernment to ensure that I have a "competitive monopoly"; others are allowed to open banks but they should first secure the proper paperwork and demonstrate a substantial proof that their region requires a seperate banking facility.

Any wikiuser who signs their name below will be able to receive 1 WikiCredit. Should their wikifunds run out, a user will be able to fulfill contractual actions and still receive payment for 1 WikiCredit per signatory. A maximum of 40 signatories are currently being accepted.

Those who make use of their one WikiCredit will be sent a bill for 1.1 WikiCredits. Should they pay this within 3 days, they will have fulfilled their contractual obligations; otherwise, a late fee of .5 will be applied every week for the next three weeks. At that point, interest will accumulate at the rate of 10% per week.

The Wiki Pizza Puzzle Banking Consortium declares that it maintains the right to seize and repossess assets from debtors who have exceeded their 3 day grace period. Should said WPPPBC do so, a charge of 5 wikicredits will be required for the processing of necessary paperwork. All terms subject to change without notice. Non payment of the obligatory mandated filing charges will result in penalties double that of the standard default penalizing schema which was set forth in section 13ZQQ.

The Wiki Proletariat
 * YOUR NAME COULD BE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy wiki financial security now!

Don't tell me off, but I've done the disambiguation wrong again (cutting and pasting instead of moving) with Nicholas Ridley. I'll try and remember next time. Deb 23:08 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Let's put it this way -- I've no objection to it being re-done, but I don't even want to think about doing my own dirty work. Cheers. Deb 17:15 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Don't worry, I've done it. :) -- Oliver P. 00:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oops, you're right about Wikimedia not being a new page; I did check its history, but I just kind of saw those first two edits having "19" for the date, blanked on the fact that they said "March" in front of that, and figured it was in sequence with the "20"s above, and was close enough to a new article. Maybe I was a little overzealous in wanting some mention of it in that area, but didn't think it warranted going in the "In the news" category. -- John Owens 19:57 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Ah, thanks for explaining. Yep, I don't think Wikipedia is famous enough for a change in its organisation to make the news. Not just yet, anyway. ;) -- Oliver P. 00:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If pages weren't deleted so quickly, I could do more; although apparently User:Eloquence has taken some offense to my editing; arguing that I "edit too much."

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Pizza Puzzle

 * Thanks for rescuing that page, Mr. Puzzle. -- Oliver P. 00:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you put the Gujarat map I provide on the fr:wikipedia. Cool ! but I am in the process of relooking all the indian states and I put some new maps, ans they are much better... So, use them 8^)

see Goujerat

Nataraja

 * Okay, I'll be sure to use your new maps on the English-language Wikipedia in future, assuming I ever get round to adding them... Well done for making them. :) -- Oliver P. 00:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was a good idea, Oliver. The main page change has been discussed at length on Talk:Main Page/Temp, and many people have said that they like the coloured version better. It was only switched over when it seemed a consensus had finally been reached. -- Tim Starling 01:28 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing me to Talk:Main Page/Temp. But of course that page is for discussion of Main Page/Temp (a proposed new design for the Main Page), rather than for discussion of the Main Page itself. Once a consensus is reached on what a proposed new design should look like, whether or not that new design should actually replace the old one is another question altogether. Now that I've looked for it, I've found a comment by Eloquence dated 18:22 2 Jul 2003 (UTC) on Talk:Main Page (see here) announcing the forthcoming change. In the nine hours or so between that announcement and the change itself being made, no reply was made on that page. There was clearly not enough time for a discussion. Not that Eloquence was even inviting one: it's interesting that he announced that it "will soon be merged", rather than asking whether or not it was what people actually wanted. -- Oliver P. 00:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What the heck did you do on the main page, Oliver? The overwhelmingly view is that people much prefer the colour version. It is a bit. . . em. . . odd for you to unilaterally change the page when the clear majority indicated they far preferred the colour version to the old one. I have reverted the change back to what going by a headcount of comments is clearly by far the more popular version. (BTW I might as well declare an interest. I think the new version is 100 times better than what I have long thought was a poorly designed, underwhelming front page. My first reaction on seeing your change was "bloody hell! Is that hideous thing back again?" I checked on all the pages the new page has been discussed on and not merely the majority but the overwhelming majority prefer the new page to the old, hence the reversion.) FearÉIREANN 05:02 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Ah, you did make me laugh when you accused me of unilateralism in your edit summary, James. :) I was, as you know, only restoring the Main Page back to its usual - and arguably more tasteful - state, which was of course no more "unilateral" an action than Eloquence's change was in the first place. We are, of course, all free to edit pages as we see fit, within the usual policy guidelines, and so if someone makes an edit we disagree with, we are perfectly within our rights to change things back. This is the nature of a wiki. And you do rather exaggerate your support in these sorts of disagreements, don't you? The coloured version was certainly not "by far the more popular version", by any stretch of the imagination. I did read the part of Talk:Main Page (see this version) from Fantasy's comment onwards. I made it:

 * In favour: Fantasy, Whkoh, JasonM, Eloquence, mav, FearÉIREANN
 * Against: James F., Usedbook, TomK32, stewacide

 * Which is only 6:4 in your favour. With my vote added, it's 6:5. Technically that's a majority, but not a significant one (let alone "overwhelming"), and I felt perfectly within my rights to change something which didn't have the support of any consensus.

 * By the way, I was annoyed (though not surprised) to find the colours back again when I signed in tonight. My first reaction on seeing the change was, "Bloody hell! Is that hideous thing back again?" :P -- Oliver P. 00:44 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The change has been debated for weeks on a temp page and a consensus reached. Putting together the debate there and on the main talk page the clear majority is in favour of it. Eloquence's insertion of the new page was not unilateral, it was long long debated, the colour scheme discussed in detail over weeks, variations suggestions, mock ups produced, alternative suggestions explored, etc. All that happened was that a long discussed, long planned and long analysed and agreed new page went 'live'. You then unilaterally overruled that debate and decided because you didn't want it, you were going to put in the version you wanted in, in the process overruling everyone else. In doing that you showed gross disrespect to the many people who took part in the debate, who put hours of work in, who sought opinions, who tweaked the temp page draft to suit observations. (BTW I was not a participant in that debate, merely an observer.) You and The Cunctator decided that you possessed a veto over everyone else's weeks of work. That was grossly unfair, though to be fair I presume (given that you normally don't act like this) that the problem was simply that you were unaware that wiki is currently undergoing a redesign and that what happened was not unilateral action by Eloquence but simply the going live of a redesign that had long been planned, worked on and agreed. (In The Cunctator's case it was simply he doing his usual 'I'll do what I want irrespective of anyone else' stunt.) FearÉIREANN 01:05 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * See my above reply to Tim Starling. The discussion page attached to the temp page is a discussion of the temp page, not of the Main Page. My understanding was that Main Page/Temp was just one proposal for a replacement Main Page. (Main Page/Temp2 is another, newer proposal - far more tasteful in my opinion, though still less so than the original.) I never commented on Talk:Main Page/Temp because I had nothing to say about the construction of Main Page/Temp itself. I just thought it was something that people were playing with, to see how it would go, and to be honest I thought the idea had been dropped, since I hadn't noticed it being discussed for a while. I wasn't aware that we were under any obligation to accept any such proposals as soon as someone decided to implement them; otherwise, I would have said something sooner. -- Oliver P. 01:26 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wait until you see my pages go live in full colour!!! :-b (joke!!!) FearÉIREANN 01:15 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, my old flower! Just letting people who expressed an opinion know that a mysterious vote has appeared from nowhere and they might want to formally register their vote there. But then as they have already clearly expressed their view, that counts as a de facto vote anyway.

Re the above, the temp page wasn't some theoretical 'what if' page, trying out mythical ideas for a new page. It was the planning of a new page. The plan was always, when there was agreement on a new page it would go live. There was agreement on a new page. It went live, as planned. As to the German page, as my flatmate said, "its so, em . . . so . . . german". By which he meant dull and conformist. (Wild for Germany is sending a 50 year old in a mullet hairstyle and leather trousers to look and sound like a 1980s Rip Van Winkle in the Eurovision Contest.) Actually I love germans - I've gone out with two, lived in Frankfurt and have an ex living there. My favourite 'German' experience was seeing five Germans, standing on O'Connell Street in Dublin at 4.30am. Not a car within a quarter-mile and still they stand waiting for the green man and the traffic lights and look with incredulity at the sight of three Irish people and one Brit crossing the totally empty street without getting the OK from the green man. They seemed devoted to order and structure (including in their clothes sense, where he four men - in their 40s - were all wearing leather trousers and polo-neck tops. Heck they each had two ex-wives!). By the end of the trip they had almost done my head in. Even worse when I visited them, all their friends wore leather trousers and polo necks, dared not cross a roadway without getting green-man permission, drank the same number of beers, went home at the same time, and all seemed to be in the middle of their latest divorce before marrying wife number 3! Freaky. (You'd never catch me in a polo-neck, through I do wear leather trousers occasionally!) FearÉIREANN 03:12 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just as a point of conversation, do you really think of Alice as being pedantic? I think she is perhaps sometimes....err... over-resolutely concrete.... but I rather think that makes her like most small children, rather than like a scholar! -- Someone else 00:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Erm... I don't really know. The word was already in the article before I edited it, so I deny responsibility for it! Probably she was more the victim of the other characters' various bizarre forms of pedantry, now that I come to think of it. Feel free to change it; I'm sure you can express things better than I can... -- Oliver P. 00:57 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, I don't know about that! I was prepared to reassess my dismissal of her pedantry if you thought otherwise. I think you're right about Alice-as-victim-rather-than-perpetrator. -- Someone else 01:04 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * If people have started taking my opinions seriously, then I think I must have inadvertently stepped into a strange mirror universe... ;) -- Oliver P. 01:12 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Start humbly... a small reality-warping bubble should do for most purposes. -- Someone else 01:28 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If text immediately follows a tag, it appears as indented on the page. There needs to be a blank line between the end of the tag and the text. RickK 01:08 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation! -- Oliver P. 01:19 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your guilt. I have taken your issue to the mailing list and propose that, as punishment, your user page be deleted and all contributions you have made should be rolled back, regardless of whether later editors have modified the text. Good day, and WikiLove to you! Pizza Puzzle

I was curious about whether my strategy is a valid one. I don't understand the copyright restrictions well enough. Is it acceptable to: 1) Use multiple sources for your information, 2) Paraphrase and rewrite so that it is worded different (and/or a combination of the multiple sources)? I have done that sort of thing before. I would get 3-4 sites and combine key points from each of them and reword it in a completely different way. What do you think? Randyc 04:23 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I am not a lawyer. :) But what you're saying sounds perfectly fine, if it really is rewritten. The number of sources isn't really relevant, I don't think. Anything that's written in your own words is all right. As for how much you have to change something for it to be considered "your own words", well, that's the tricky part. I'm probably not the best person to ask. :) Maybe Village pump would be the right place to ask, if you want other people's opinions. Do you have a specific example that you are worried about? -- Oliver P. 04:32 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oliver, I've noticed that you've been removing & posting for deletion a number of articles that are using material from the Open Directory. Reading the terms of use on that site, it appears to me that as long as the submitting individual gives proper credit to Open Directory, it can be used & modified in Wikipedia -- the same terms we use material from the out-of-copyright 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles. If proper attributions are added to these article, then we can use the material.

Then again, you may be following a decision made before I ever started contributing to Wikipedia. Is that the case, or did you miss this part of the OD License? -- llywrch 05:03 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * We might be able to use it, but it wouldn't be covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. It's not the same as with the Britannica articles: those are now public domain, which means that anyone can use them pretty much however they want. However, the Open Directory articles are licensed under the terms of the Open Directory License, which means that any works derived from them need to be released under the Open Directory License as well. That licence is viral in just the same way that the GFDL is. If we started to use this material, what with all the copying and pasting of bits of text from article to article, we'd end up with a large proportion of our material covered by the Open Directory License instead of by the GFDL. Come to think of it, we couldn't put it into our GFDLed articles at all, because that would mean releasing the whole modified article under the terms of the Open Directory License, which we couldn't do unless all the previous contributors of that article agreed to it: they've only agreed to release their content under the GFDL, you see, not the Open Directory License. We'd just end up in a horrible mess, with two distinct parts of the Wikipedia: a GFDL part and an Open Directory License part. -- Oliver P. 05:15 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in responding, Oliver: in part I've been thinking over your response, & mostly have been busy at the Open Source Convention here in Portland. Also, I didn't see the discussion on Village pump.)

It is very tempting to say that the ODL license easily subsumes the GFD License (much like the BSD license is subsumed by the GPL), & I somewhat lean towards this POV, but until we get a clear ruling on the matter, I agree with you that removing these articles is the best solution. It should be up to the contributor to prove this argument before we accept these articles. (And it might better help contributors who find their submissions removed if the reason were stated as a "license conflict" rather than "copyright violation".) -- llywrch 00:08 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I confess to having complete (and apparently blissful) ignorance of Jordan, but I've glanced at the article. Is this a woman or a soap opera!?. I don't think there was much to change in terms of the description of the various diseases. It is mentioned that she is famous for the size of her breasts: am I correct in assuming this is because they are grotesquely large rather than vanishingly small? -- Someone else 04:09 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In that context, it can be capitalised or left in lowercase. Often when talking about someone being something, it is OK to have it lowercased. So one would write of ''Elizabeth II being queen. Mary McAleese being president of Ireland, Tony Blair being prime minister. But if one used the definite article in the sentence, capitalisation would be obligatory, hence Elizabeth II being the Queen, Mary McAleese being the President of Ireland, Tony Blair being the Prime Minister. If it was purely my choice I would still capitalise, but given the lowercase or death'' brigade, I thought it wiser and less troublesome to pick the lowercase option, not least because I had not linked it. But once linked as you did, I would go uppercase as a matter of style. Of course that would be heresy to the LoD fanatics. But then I find their lack of concern with proper english weird in the extreme. I came across a page lately where someone was advising me to "chill" over my demand for proper upper casing, they asking "what does it matter?" I was so tempted to leave a message saying "it may not matter to the illiterate, but to those concerned about producing a professional encyclopædia, it matters 100% about spelling, grammar, capitalisation, etc." (Translated - you illiterate berk!) But don't worry, I am not giving away one inch on proper capitalisation! (I'm sorry, BTW but everytime I will ever see Jordan from now on I will think of you! Hee Hee! All I hope that no-one ever remembers that tonight I defended Celia Larkin, the Alexis Carrington of Irish politics!!! FearÉIREANN 05:28 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding pedantry: The links changed did not link to State. None of them. They were labeled so, but didn't link there. They linked to Bundesland, which is a disambiguation page. Changing links to a disambiguation page into links to the detailed articles is in fact called disambiguating.

Regarding your proposal to link to an article with a different name: I just changed 250 articles. Implementing your proposal would imply changing them again. Let's wait until there is need to do so and do it than, not now. -- JeLuF 09:56 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for kicking off Gerald Duckworth. I admit I knew absolutely nothing about him - I wasn't even sure if he was the publisher. Deb 16:27 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi there! I just read your note about Nursling. Sorry to be such a townie, but having come across WikiProject London I have to say I took our London ways out into the country side - and no nad thing perhaps. Having developed this convention for London I think it is only sensible to extend this out to the countryside, even if this can only be done by selecting location to be found on straight lines criss-crossing the soft green mantle of Albion's landscape.Harry Potter 12:57 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not me Guv! Mintguy

Er.. yeah it's a fair cop. I was just looking at my archive. I remember now (sort of). I made a big balls up. Someone moved 'List_of_places_in_London' and I was moving it back but I made a cock up, I accidentally moved 'Talk:List_of_places_in_London,_England' to 'List_of_places_in_London', so I have to put it back and I couldn't fix it properly as I'm not a sysop. I'm afraid I completely forgot about it. Mintguy

This search should pick up any that need moving (it doesn't include redirects, handily, though it will return some disambiguation pages and other oddities). I had no idea there were so many distinct places within London, and I'm starting to go a bit mad with moving them all around, I think. I'm sure some of them have been made up just to annoy me (I mean, Pratt's Bottom?). I really appreciate your help, by the way. --Camembert

It's looks like the only one left is Debden, London, England, which appears to be a different place to Debden, England. I'm not sure how to handle this, as they're both in Essex - any ideas? --Camembert

Debden (nasty urban one) and Debden (nice rural one) use parentheses rather than commas, and so must be superior ;) I'll leave it in your capable hands, I think - I'm off to bed now. Thanks again for the help. --Camembert

I demand you talk some sense into Fernando! Pizza Puzzle

Hi Oliver, I've put forward some other ideas about how to make the VFD page more user-friendly and more decisive. They are on the Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I'd welcome your observations. lol FearÉIREANN 00:41 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oliver Pereira/Archive 3


text:
User:AdrianSC

x

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:AdrianSC


text:
September Dossier

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, also known as the September Dossier, was a document published by the British government on 24 September 2002. Parliament was recalled on the same day to discuss the contents of the document. The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq six months later. It contained a number of allegations according to which Iraq also possessed WMD, including chemical weapons and biological weapons. The dossier even alleged that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme.

The much-anticipated document was based on reports made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, part of the British Intelligence 'machinery'. Most of the evidence was uncredited, ostensibly to protect sources. On publication, serious press comment was generally critical of the dossier for tameness and for the seeming lack of any genuinely new evidence. Those politically opposed to military action against Iraq generally agreed that the dossier was unremarkable, with Menzies Campbell observing in the House of Commons that:

"We can also agree that [Saddam Hussein] most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume."

However, two sections later became the centre of fierce debate: the allegation that Iraq had sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and the claim in the foreword to the document written by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun, subsequently carried the headline "Brits 45mins from doom", while the Daily Star reported "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war", helping to create the impression among the British public that Iraq was a threat to Britain.

Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care." On 26 June 2011, The Observer reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.

Uranium from Niger
The claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa was repeated in US President George W. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union Address. The controversial '16 words' used by President Bush on 28 January 2003 were:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

In March 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), when it finally obtained the documents referred to by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council alleging transactions between Niger and Iraq, concluded that they were obvious fakes.

Subsequently, CIA director George Tenet stated that the remarks should not have been included in the US President's speech. This followed a remark by US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, saying that the presence of the line in the speech showed that it had been authorised by the CIA.

In July, Tony Blair testified to the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the evidence the government had regarding Iraq's dealings with Niger came from a separate source to the fraudulent documents. Ever since Powell's presentation, critics argued that had the US and UK intelligence services fully cooperated with United Nations weapons inspectors, it could have been found out whether the claims were truthful.

The same month, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which was investigating the veracity of the claims in the dossier) that the statement in the dossier rested on separate evidence which was still under review, and that this specific intelligence had not been shared with the CIA. In written evidence to the same committee, however, Straw further disclosed that the intelligence information upon which the British government had relied was shared separately with the IAEA by a foreign government shortly before their report of 7 March 2003. This was further confirmed in a Parliamentary answer to Lynne Jones MP. Lynne Jones subsequently contacted the IAEA to question whether a third party had discussed or shared separate intelligence with them and, if so, what assessment they made of it. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky responded to Jones on 25 May 2004:

"I can confirm to you that we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents."

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee judged that the British government had been wrong to state in an unqualified manner something that had not been established beyond doubt:

"We conclude that it is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged, but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence. The assertion "…that Iraq sought the supply of significant amounts of uranium from Africa …" should have been qualified to reflect the uncertainty."

The privately Blair-appointed Butler Review, whose own report was issued after the aforementioned public investigation, concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa appeared credible:

"a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British Government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."

The Butler Review also made a specific conclusion on President Bush's 16 words: "By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded."

The 45 minute claim
The 45 minute claim lies at the centre of a row between Downing Street and the BBC. On 29 May 2003, BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan filed a report for BBC Radio 4's Today programme in which he stated that an unnamed source – a senior British official – had told him that the September Dossier had been "sexed up", and that the intelligence agencies were concerned about some "dubious" information contained within it – specifically the claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them.

On 1 June, Gilligan expanded upon that claim in The Mail on Sunday newspaper, stating that the government's director of communications, Alastair Campbell, had been responsible for the insertion of the 45-minute claim, against the wishes of the intelligence agencies. Gilligan subsequently gave evidence before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as did Campbell, who denied ordering the inclusion of the claim, and demanded an apology from the BBC. He subsequently backed this demand in writing.

The BBC refused to apologise, and stood by Gilligan's story. Campbell responded angrily, with an appearance on Channel 4 News.

On 7 July, the Select Committee published a report which cleared Campbell, albeit on the casting vote of the chairman. In the report, the committee stated that the 45-minute claim had been given "undue prominence".

On 15 September, MI6 head Richard Dearlove told the Hutton Inquiry that the claim related to battlefield WMD rather than weapons of mass destruction of a larger range than just battlefield. On the same day, Tony Cragg, the retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, admitted there were memos from two members of DIS objecting that parts of the dossier, including the 45-minute claim, was "far too strong" or "over-egged".

On 28 January 2004, the Hutton Inquiry released its report, which among other things concluded that:
 * "Mr Gilligan accepted that he had made errors" about the 45 minute claim; specifically, his report that the government "probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable", and his report that intelligence officers were unhappy with the insertion of the claim in the dossier, or only inserted it at the insistence of the government, were erroneous.
 * Hutton was "satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan" certain dramatic statements about the 45 minute claim, which Gilligan had reported as direct quotations.
 * That only one person (Dr. Jones) had expressed any reservations about the 45 minute claim, and that was about the strength of the wording, not its inclusion.

Information surfacing in late 2009 initially appeared to suggest that the source of the 45 minute claim was in fact a taxi driver "on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier". Whether or not the taxi driver was the source of the 45-minute claim or instead "something about missiles" remains an open question.

It is also claimed by Adam Holloway MP that "When the information was acquired by MI6, a footnote was written on the page of an intelligence report sent to No 10 stating that the claim was 'verifiably inaccurate'."

Role in the death of David Kelly
The following day, 30 May 2003, the Ministry of Defence claimed that one of its officials (later named as Dr. David Kelly) had come forward, admitting to having discussed the matter of Iraq's weapons with Gilligan on 22 May. The BBC responded by saying that Kelly differed from Gilligan's key source in "important ways". Kelly was subsequently called before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee whose conclusion was that Kelly was being used as a scapegoat and that he had not been Gilligan's key mole.

On 17 July, Gilligan gave evidence to a private session of the Select Committee, and was subsequently criticised for not naming his source, and for changing his story. The BBC continued to stand by him.

On the same day, Kelly left his home for an area of woodland and was later found dead with his left wrist slit, apparently having committed suicide.

On 20 July, Richard Sambrook, director of news at the BBC, revealed that Kelly was indeed the key source for Gilligan's report, and that the BBC had not said so before so as to protect Kelly. The BBC stressed that Gilligan's reporting accurately reflected Kelly's comments, implying that Kelly had not been entirely truthful with the Select Committee. An inquest into the cause of the death was begun, but was suspended by Lord Falconer.

The BBC committed to assisting fully with the then forthcoming Hutton Inquiry into Kelly's death.

On 28 January 2004, the Hutton Inquiry published its report. With regard to the death of Kelly:
 * Hutton was "satisfied that Kelly took his own life"
 * Hutton was "satisfied that Dr. Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan" certain dramatic statements which Gilligan had reported as quotations. Regarding certain other statements (reported by Gilligan as quotations but also denied by Kelly), it was "not possible to reach a definite conclusion" whether it was Gilligan or Kelly who had lied.
 * Kelly's meeting with Gilligan was "in breach of the Civil Service code"
 * Kelly may not have originally intended to discuss intelligence matters with Gilligan, but after 29 May he "must have come to realise the gravity of the situation".
 * The BBC's investigation into Gilligan's report was flawed, and "the Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints"
 * The Ministry of Defence (MOD) was at fault for not informing Kelly of their strategy that would involve naming him.

Dissatisfied with the results of the Hutton Inquiry, in 2010 experts called for the suspended inquest to be reopened.

title: September Dossier


text:
Debits and credits

Debits and credits in double-entry bookkeeping are entries made in account ledgers to record changes in value resulting from business transactions. A debit entry in an account represents a transfer of value to that account, and a credit entry represents a transfer from the account. Each transaction transfers value from credited accounts to debited accounts. For example, a tenant who writes a rent cheque to a landlord would enter a credit for the bank account on which the cheque is drawn, and a debit in a rent expense account. Similarly, the landlord would enter a credit in the rent income account associated with the tenant and a debit for the bank account where the cheque is deposited.

Debits and credits are traditionally distinguished by writing the transfer amounts in separate columns of an account book. This practice simplified the manual calculation of net balances before the introduction of computers; each column was added separately, and then the smaller total was subtracted from the larger. Alternatively, debits and credits can be listed in one column, indicating debits with the suffix "Dr" or writing them plain, and indicating credits with the suffix "Cr" or a minus sign. Debits and credits do not, however, correspond in a fixed way to positive and negative numbers. Instead the correspondence depends on the normal balance convention of the particular account.

History
Indian merchants developed a double-entry bookkeeping system, called bahi-khata, some time in the first millenium.

This system was likely a direct precursor of the first European adaptation many centuries later. The first known use of the terms "debit" and "credit" occurred in the Venetian Luca Pacioli's 1494 work, Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportioni et Proportionalita (A Summary of Arithmetic, Geometry, Proportions and Proportionality). Pacioli devoted one section of his book to documenting and describing the double-entry bookkeeping system in use during the Renaissance by Venetian merchants, traders and bankers. This system is still the fundamental system in use by modern bookkeepers. It is sometimes said that, in its original Latin, Pacioli's Summa used the Latin words debere (to owe) and credere (to entrust) to describe the two sides of a closed accounting transaction. Assets were owed to the owner and the owners' equity was entrusted to the company. At the time negative numbers were not in use. When his work was translated, the Latin words debere and credere became the English debit and credit. Under this theory, the abbreviations Dr (for debit) and Cr (for credit) derive directly from the original Latin. However, Sherman casts doubt on this idea because Pacioli uses Per (Italian for "by") for the debtor and A (Italian for "to") for the creditor in the Journal entries. Sherman goes on to say that the earliest text he found that actually uses "Dr." as an abbreviation in this context was an English text, the third edition (1633) of Ralph Handson's book Analysis or Resolution of Merchant Accompts and that Handson uses Dr. as an abbreviation for the English word "debtor." (Sherman could not locate a first edition, but speculates that it too used Dr. for debtor.) The words actually used by Pacioli for the left and right sides of the Ledger are "in dare" and "in havere" (give and receive). Geijsbeek the translator suggests in the preface: "'if we today would abolish the use of the words debit and credit in the ledger and substitute the ancient terms of 'shall give' and 'shall have' or 'shall receive', the personification of accounts in the proper way would not be difficult and, with it, bookkeeping would become more intelligent to the proprietor, the layman and the student.'"

As Jackson has noted, "debtor" need not be a person, but can be an abstract party: "'...it became the practice to extend the meanings of the terms ... beyond their original personal connotation and apply them to inanimate objects and abstract conceptions...'" This sort of abstraction is already apparent in Richard Dafforne's 17th-century text The Merchant's Mirror, where he states "Cash representeth (to me) a man to whom I … have put my money into his keeping; the which by reason is obliged to render it back."

Aspects of transactions
To determine whether to debit or credit a specific account, we use either the accounting equation approach (based on five accounting rules), or the classical approach (based on three rules). Whether a debit increases or decreases an account's net balance depends on what kind of account it is. The basic principle is that the account receiving benefit is debited, while the account giving benefit is credited. For instance, an increase in an asset account is a debit. An increase in a liability or an equity account is a credit.

The classical approach has three golden rules, one for each type of account:

 * Real accounts: Debit whatever comes in and credit whatever goes out.
 * Personal accounts: Receiver's account is debited and giver's account is credited.
 * Nominal accounts: Expenses and losses are debited and incomes and gains are credited.

Debits and credits occur simultaneously in every financial transaction in double-entry bookkeeping. In the accounting equation, Assets = Liabilities + Equity, so, if an asset account increases (a debit (left)), then either another asset account must decrease (a credit (right)), or a liability or equity account must increase (a credit (right)). In the extended equation, revenues increase equity and expenses, costs & dividends decrease equity, so their difference is the impact on the equation.

For example, if a company provides a service to a customer who does not pay immediately, the company records an increase in assets, Accounts Receivable with a debit entry, and an increase in Revenue, with a credit entry. When the company receives the cash from the customer, two accounts again change on the company side, the cash account is debited (increased) and the Accounts Receivable account is now decreased (credited). When the cash is deposited to the bank account, two things also change, on the bank side: the bank records an increase in its cash account (debit) and records an increase in its liability to the customer by recording a credit in the customer's account (which is not cash). Note that, technically, the deposit is not a decrease in the cash (asset) of the company and should not be recorded as such. It is just a transfer to a proper bank account of record in the company's books, not affecting the ledger.

To make it more clear, the bank views the transaction from a different perspective but follows the same rules: the bank's vault cash (asset) increases, which is a debit; the increase in the customer's account balance (liability from the bank's perspective) is a credit. A customer's periodic bank statement generally shows transactions from the bank's perspective, with cash deposits characterized as credits (liabilities) and withdrawals as debits (reductions in liabilities) in depositor's accounts. In the company's books the exact opposite entries should be recorded to account for the same cash. This concept is important since this is why so many people misunderstand what debit/credit really means.

Commercial understanding
When setting up the accounting for a new business, a number of accounts are established to record all business transactions that are expected to occur. Typical accounts that relate to almost every business are: Cash, Accounts Receivable, Inventory, Accounts Payable and Retained Earnings. Each account can be broken down further, to provide additional detail as necessary. For example: Accounts Receivable can be broken down to show each customer that owes the company money. In simplistic terms, if Bob, Dave, and Roger owe the company money, the Accounts Receivable account will contain a separate account for Bob, and Dave and Roger. All 3 of these accounts would be added together and shown as a single number (i.e. total 'Accounts Receivable' – balance owed) on the balance sheet. All accounts for a company are grouped together and summarized on the balance sheet in 3 sections which are: Assets, Liabilities and Equity.

All accounts must first be classified as one of the five types of accounts (accounting elements) ( asset, liability, equity, income and expense). To determine how to classify an account into one of the five elements, the definitions of the five account types must be fully understood. The definition of an asset according to IFRS is as follows, "An asset is a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity". In simplistic terms, this means that Assets are accounts viewed as having a future value to the company (i.e. cash, accounts receivable, equipment, computers). Liabilities, conversely, would include items that are obligations of the company (i.e. loans, accounts payable, mortgages, debts).

The Equity section of the balance sheet typically shows the value of any outstanding shares that have been issued by the company as well as its earnings. All Income and expense accounts are summarized in the Equity Section in one line on the balance sheet called Retained Earnings. This account, in general, reflects the cumulative profit (retained earnings) or loss (retained deficit) of the company.

The Profit and Loss Statement is an expansion of the Retained Earnings Account. It breaks-out all the Income and expense accounts that were summarized in Retained Earnings. The Profit and Loss report is important in that it shows the detail of sales, cost of sales, expenses and ultimately the profit of the company. Most companies rely heavily on the profit and loss report and review it regularly to enable strategic decision making.

Terminology
The words debit and credit can sometimes be confusing because they depend on the point of view from which a transaction is observed. In accounting terms, assets are recorded on the left side (debit) of asset accounts, because they are typically shown on the left side of the accounting equation (A=L+SE). Likewise, an increase in liabilities and shareholder's equity are recorded on the right side (credit) of those accounts, thus they also maintain the balance of the accounting equation. In other words, if "assets are increased with left side entries, the accounting equation is balanced only if increases in liabilities and shareholder’s equity are recorded on the opposite or right side. Conversely, decreases in assets are recorded on the right side of asset accounts, and decreases in liabilities and equities are recorded on the left side". Similar is the case with revenues and expenses, what increases shareholder's equity is recorded as credit because they are in the right side of equation and vice versa. Typically, when reviewing the financial statements of a business, Assets are Debits and Liabilities and Equity are Credits. For example, when two companies transact with one another say Company A buys something from Company B then Company A will record a decrease in cash (a Credit), and Company B will record an increase in cash (a Debit). The same transaction is recorded from two different perspectives.

This use of the terms can be counter-intuitive to people unfamiliar with bookkeeping concepts, who may always think of a credit as an increase and a debit as a decrease. This is because most people typically only see their personal bank accounts and billing statements (e.g., from a utility). A depositor's bank account is actually a Liability to the bank, because the bank legally owes the money to the depositor. Thus, when the customer makes a deposit, the bank credits the account (increases the bank's liability). At the same time, the bank adds the money to its own cash holdings account. Since this account is an Asset, the increase is a debit. But the customer typically does not see this side of the transaction.

On the other hand, when a utility customer pays a bill or the utility corrects an overcharge, the customer's account is credited. This is because the customer's account is one of the utility's accounts receivable, which are Assets to the utility because they represent money the utility can expect to receive from the customer in the future. Credits actually decrease Assets (the utility is now owed less money). If the credit is due to a bill payment, then the utility will add the money to its own cash account, which is a debit because the account is another Asset. Again, the customer views the credit as an increase in the customer's own money and does not see the other side of the transaction.

Debit cards and credit cards
Debit cards and credit cards are creative terms used by the banking industry to market and identify each card. From the cardholder's point of view, a credit card account normally contains a credit balance, a debit card account normally contains a debit balance. A debit card is used to make a purchase with one's own money. A credit card is used to make a purchase by borrowing money.

From the bank's point of view, when a debit card is used to pay a merchant, the payment causes a decrease in the amount of money the bank owes to the cardholder. From the bank's point of view, your debit card account is the bank's liability. A decrease to the bank's liability account is a debit. From the bank's point of view, when a credit card is used to pay a merchant, the payment causes an increase in the amount of money the bank is owed by the cardholder. From the bank's point of view, your credit card account is the bank's asset. An increase to the bank's asset account is a debit. Hence, using a debit card or credit card causes a debit to the cardholder's account in either situation when viewed from the bank's perspective.

General ledgers
General ledger is the term for the comprehensive collection of T-accounts (it is so called because there was a pre-printed vertical line in the middle of each ledger page and a horizontal line at the top of each ledger page, like a large letter T). Before the advent of computerized accounting, manual accounting procedure used a ledger book for each T-account. The collection of all these books was called the general ledger. The chart of accounts is the table of contents of the general ledger. Totaling of all debits and credits in the general ledger at the end of a financial period is known as trial balance.

"Daybooks" or journals are used to list every single transaction that took place during the day, and the list is totaled at the end of the day. These daybooks are not part of the double-entry bookkeeping system. The information recorded in these daybooks is then transferred to the general ledgers, where it is said to be posted. Modern computer software allows for the instant update of each ledger account; for example, when recording a cash receipt in a cash receipts journal a debit is posted to a cash ledger account with a corresponding credit to the ledger account from which the cash was received. Not every single transaction needs to be entered into a T-account; usually only the sum (the batch total) for the day of each book transaction is entered in the general ledger.

The five accounting elements
There are five fundamental elements within accounting. These elements are as follows: Assets, Liabilities, Equity (or Capital), Income (or Revenue) and Expenses. The five accounting elements are all affected in either a positive or negative way. A credit transaction does not always dictate a positive value or increase in a transaction and similarly, a debit does not always indicate a negative value or decrease in a transaction. An asset account is often referred to as a "debit account" due to the account's standard increasing attribute on the debit side. When an asset (e.g. an espresso machine) has been acquired in a business, the transaction will affect the debit side of that asset account illustrated below:

The "X" in the debit column denotes the increasing effect of a transaction on the asset account balance (total debits less total credits), because a debit to an asset account is an increase. The asset account above has been added to by a debit value X, i.e. the balance has increased by £X or $X. Likewise, in the liability account below, the X in the credit column denotes the increasing effect on the liability account balance (total credits less total debits), because a credit to a liability account is an increase.

All "mini-ledgers" in this section show standard increasing attributes for the five elements of accounting.

Summary table of standard increasing and decreasing attributes for the accounting elements:

Attributes of accounting elements per real, personal, and nominal accounts
Real accounts are assets. Personal accounts are liabilities and owners' equity and represent people and entities that have invested in the business. Nominal accounts are revenue, expenses, gains, and losses. Accountants close out accounts at the end of each accounting period. This method is known as the traditional approach.

Principle
Each transaction that takes place within the business will consist of at least one debit to a specific account and at least one credit to another specific account. A debit to one account can be balanced by more than one credit to other accounts, and vice versa. For all transactions, the total debits must be equal to the total credits and therefore balance.

The general accounting equation is as follows:
 * Assets = Equity + Liabilities,
 * A = E + L.

The equation thus becomes A – L – E = 0 (zero). When the total debits equals the total credits for each account, then the equation balances.

The extended accounting equation is as follows:
 * Assets + Expenses = Equity/Capital + Liabilities + Income,
 * A + Ex = E + L + I.

In this form, increases to the amount of accounts on the left-hand side of the equation are recorded as debits, and decreases as credits. Conversely for accounts on the right-hand side, increases to the amount of accounts are recorded as credits to the account, and decreases as debits.

This can also be rewritten in the equivalent form:
 * Assets = Liabilities + Equity/Capital + (Income − Expenses),
 * A = L + E + (I − Ex),

where the relationship of the Income and Expenses accounts to Equity and profit is a bit clearer. Here Income and Expenses are regarded as temporary or nominal accounts which pertain only to the current accounting period whereas Asset, Liability, and Equity accounts are permanent or real accounts pertaining to the lifetime of the business. The temporary accounts are closed to the Equity account at the end of the accounting period to record profit/loss for the period. Both sides of these equations must be equal (balance).

Each transaction is recorded in a ledger or "T" account, e.g. a ledger account named "Bank" that can be changed with either a debit or credit transaction.

In accounting it is acceptable to draw-up a ledger account in the following manner for representation purposes:

Accounts pertaining to the five accounting elements
Accounts are created/opened when the need arises for whatever purpose or situation the entity may have. For example, if your business is an airline company they will have to purchase airplanes, therefore even if an account is not listed below, a bookkeeper or accountant can create an account for a specific item, such as an asset account for airplanes. In order to understand how to classify an account into one of the five elements, a good understanding of the definitions of these accounts is required. Below are examples of some of the more common accounts that pertain to the five accounting elements:

Asset accounts
Asset accounts are economic resources which benefit the business/entity and will continue to do so. They are Cash, bank, accounts receivable, inventory, land, buildings/plant, machinery, furniture, equipment, supplies, vehicles, trademarks and patents, goodwill, prepaid expenses, prepaid insurance, debtors (people who owe us money, due within one year), VAT input etc.

Two types of basic asset classification:
 * Current assets: Assets which operate in a financial year or assets that can be used up, or converted within one year or less are called current assets. For example, Cash, bank, accounts receivable, inventory (people who owe us money, due within one year), prepaid expenses, prepaid insurance, VAT input and many more.
 * Non-current assets: Assets that are not recorded in transactions or hold for more than one year or in an accounting period are called Non-current assets. For example, land, buildings/plant, machinery, furniture, equipment, vehicles, trademarks and patents, goodwill etc.

Liability accounts
Liability accounts record debts or future obligations a business or entity owes to others. When one institution borrows from another for a period of time, the ledger of the borrowing institution categorises the argument under liability accounts.

The basic classifications of liability accounts are:
 * Current liability, when money only may be owed for the current accounting period or periodical. Examples include accounts payable, salaries and wages payable, income taxes, bank overdrafts, accrued expenses, sales taxes, advance payments (unearned revenue), debt and accrued interest on debt, customer deposits, VAT output, etc.
 * Long-term liability, when money may be owed for more than one year. Examples include trust accounts, debenture, mortgage loans and more.

Equity accounts
Equity accounts record the claims of the owners of the business/entity to the assets of that business/entity. Capital, retained earnings, drawings, common stock, accumulated funds, etc.

Income/revenue accounts
Income accounts record all increases in Equity other than that contributed by the owner/s of the business/entity. Services rendered, sales, interest income, membership fees, rent income, interest from investment, recurring receivables, donation etc.

Expense accounts
Expense accounts record all decreases in the owners' equity which occur from using the assets or increasing liabilities in delivering goods or services to a customer – the costs of doing business. Telephone, water, electricity, repairs, salaries, wages, depreciation, bad debts, stationery, entertainment, honorarium, rent, fuel, utility, interest etc.

Example
Quick Services business purchases a computer for £500, on credit, from ABC Computers. Recognize the following transaction for Quick Services in a ledger account (T-account):

Quick Services has acquired a new computer which is classified as an asset within the business. According to the accrual basis of accounting, even though the computer has been purchased on credit, the computer is already the property of Quick Services and must be recognised as such. Therefore, the equipment account of Quick Services increases and is debited:

As the transaction for the new computer is made on credit, the payable "ABC Computers" has not yet been paid. As a result, a liability is created within the entity's records. Therefore, to balance the accounting equation the corresponding liability account is credited:

The above example can be written in journal form:

The journal entry "ABC Computers" is indented to indicate that this is the credit transaction. It is accepted accounting practice to indent credit transactions recorded within a journal.

In the accounting equation form:
 * A = E + L,
 * 500 = 0 + 500 (the accounting equation is therefore balanced).

Further examples

 * 1) A business pays rent with cash: You increase rent (expense) by recording a debit transaction, and decrease cash (asset) by recording a credit transaction.
 * 2) A business receives cash for a sale: You increase cash (asset) by recording a debit transaction, and increase sales (income) by recording a credit transaction.
 * 3) A business buys equipment with cash: You increase equipment (asset) by recording a debit transaction, and decrease cash (asset) by recording a credit transaction.
 * 4) A business borrows with a cash loan: You increase cash (asset) by recording a debit transaction, and increase loan (liability) by recording a credit transaction.
 * 5) A business pays salaries with cash: You increase salary (expenses) by recording a debit transaction, and decrease cash (asset) by recording a credit transaction.
 * 6) The totals show the net effect on the accounting equation and the double-entry principle, where the transactions are balanced.

T-accounts
The process of using debits and credits creates a ledger format that resembles the letter "T". The term "T-account" is accounting jargon for a "ledger account" and is often used when discussing bookkeeping. The reason that a ledger account is often referred to as a T-account is due to the way the account is physically drawn on paper (representing a "T"). The left column is for debit (Dr) entries, while the right column is for credit (Cr) entries.

Contra account
All accounts also can be debited or credited depending on what transaction has taken place. For example, when a vehicle is purchased using cash, the asset account "Vehicles" is debited and simultaneously the asset account "Bank or Cash" is credited due to the payment for the vehicle using cash. Some balance sheet items have corresponding "contra" accounts, with negative balances, that offset them. Examples are accumulated depreciation against equipment, and allowance for bad debts (also known as allowance for doubtful accounts) against accounts receivable. United States GAAP utilizes the term contra for specific accounts only and does not recognize the second half of a transaction as a contra, thus the term is restricted to accounts that are related. For example, sales returns and allowance and sales discounts are contra revenues with respect to sales, as the balance of each contra (a debit) is the opposite of sales (a credit). To understand the actual value of sales, one must net the contras against sales, which gives rise to the term net sales (meaning net of the contras).

A more specific definition in common use is an account with a balance that is the opposite of the normal balance (Dr/Cr) for that section of the general ledger. An example is an office coffee fund: Expense "Coffee" (Dr) may be immediately followed by "Coffee – employee contributions" (Cr). Such an account is used for clarity rather than being a necessary part of GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

Accounts classification
Each of the following accounts is either an Asset (A), Contra Account (CA), Liability (L), Shareholders' Equity (SE), Revenue (Rev), Expense (Exp) or Dividend (Div) account.

Account transactions can be recorded as a debit to one account and a credit to another account using the modern or traditional approaches in accounting and following are their normal balances:

title: Debits and credits


text:
User talk:Artson

Hello, Artson. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editting help, visit How does one edit a page, or for formatting help, visit our Manual of Style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. And by the way, I've replied to you at Talk:Colchester County, Nova Scotia... -- Oliver P. 00:36 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Artson, I didn't know you were here! I'm the editor (sgilbert) of the vast and important Springhill, Nova Scotia ODP category; we've chatted a couple times. Wikipedia is my first love and main timesink, however. :) Good thing there's not much to do with that category... -- Stephen Gilbert 07:22, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Artson