User talk:Josephbrophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia Hello, everyone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over four million articles in a host of languages. The English language Wikipedia alone has over one million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site. Here are a few good links for newcomers: The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Contents 1 Your edit to O'maoilmhichi 2 Better idea 3 Spell checker 4 Society of Actuaries 4.1 Copyright 5 Actuary et. al. 6 Reinsurance and Social Insurance 7 Wikilinking 8 W. H. Grattan Flood 9 Actuary maintenance list 10 Grattan Flood 11 Piob Mhor 12 Grattan Flood picure 13 Office of the Chief Actuary 14 SoA edits 15 Bagpipers 16 List of bagpipers 17 Empty pages 18 Glossary 19 Copyright 20 Old English (Ireland) 21 Spellchecking. 22 What is the problem? 23 Great Highland Bagpipe questions 24 Question about decrement tables 25 My clearinng of blank sections 26 Sunapee, New Hampshire 27 Sunapee Beach 28 Lake Sunapee: "Midwest" aquifer? 29 Bagpipe Gracenotes 30 Image:TomGalligan.jpg 31 Actuarial science and financial economics

[edit] Your edit to O'maoilmhichi

Your recent edit to O'maoilmhichi was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better idea

I have noted your edits to the above as well. It will be much easier to rectify any spelling in O'Maoilmhichi rather than keep the new one O'Maoilmhichil which quite frankly is a bit of a mess. I am deleting the latter, so please make necessary amendments to the former. A page move is definitely not required here. Cheers. Moriori 03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC) . OK, I see you have done it the other way around. I will delete the former. Moriori

[edit] Spell checker

Not built-in, no, but you can get an extension for your browser. --Craig Stuntz 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Society of Actuaries

i noticed your editing out references to other actuarial organizatons. ok with me. However, the SoA is a driving force in North America as well as internationally in getting all the the actuarial organizations working together and working with higher standards. i need to get the scope of this effort properly reflected in the article. a large number of new entrants into the society were born outside the usa. it is important for them to understand the scope of these efforts because it creates future job opportunities for them and other future inquiries into wikipedia. one way to accomplish this is to link to websites, but i would prefer not to do that. joebrophy

I was going to put my rationale on the talk page, but my wife needed the computer at that moment :). I understand what you mean (personally, I'm credentialed by the CAS but I won't hold that against you 8-D . Seriously, the best way to discuss that, in my opinion, would be to have a paragraph, properly sourced, regarding the drive (to say driving force needs to be verified or it falls under WP:OR ) with links to the various articles for the other organizations, all linked by Category:Actuarial associations. I'll do what I can to turn the list you had in the history into at least stub articles over time (but I MUST start studying for Part 9 too ). Thanks for your excellent work, and welcome to wikipedia! (PS, I posted a basic wecome text on top with some good hints about signing your name and such) -- Avi 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

avi: here is a dilemma. the Society of Actuaries will give be permission to copy any material from any publication or website that they have created. however if the material is edited by me or any one else, then all bets are off. is there any way around this dilemma? they told me i can write about anything from them, if i put everythign in my own words. of course, this is not a problem for me. but it does raise a question. If i use a quote from some celebrity and someone else in wiki modifies the quote - than what happens? what are the protocols with repsect to "permission to use pictures or exact wording.?" joe 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC) joebrophy

In general, we cannot use anything copyrighted, and that includes exact copies of other copyrighted websites. You may wish to look here WP:CV and here Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. Regardless, in your own words and properly sourced is neither a copyvio nor plagiarism; it also doesn't need permission as it is in your own words. If someone changes YOUR wording, then that is the nature of Wikipedia. If they change it to EXACTLY the wording on the SOA site, then that is a copyvio. -- Avi 01:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are doing fine, including signing with ~~~~. Welcome to Wikipedia :) -- Avi 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) PS. No need to put "joebrophy" afterwards, and if you want to, make that your sig text. -- Avi 04:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actuary et. al.

Nice piece on Morgan, Joe. Chances are that I will move it later in the article under a section called "Notable Actuaries". Either he or Halley can be considered the first, so I guess that's notable enough. Please see here for more ideas for bringingthis article to featured article status: Wikipedia:Peer review/Actuary. Also, you don't have to put the four tildes in the summary box, just the actual text space. -- Avi 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I will be continuing any discussions of edits to Actuary on its talk page, here: Talk:Actuary. This way we don't have to jump back-and-forth on user pages. If I make a mojor edit to the article that reverts a lot of your work, I will give my reasons on the talk page, and I hope you do the same. Thanks for contributing! -- Avi 15:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinsurance and Social Insurance

Hello, Joe. I work in reinsurance. I do not think that reinsurance, or social, for that matter are different disciplines, per se. Rather, they are specialized versions of life and casulaty. The RISKS in reinsurance are materially the same. It is the excess layer and requirement to analyze a COMPANY as opposed to 250,000 drivers, that is different. What is your opinion? -- Avi 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I've moved the discussion to Talk:Actuary. I hope your computer issues work out. -- Avi 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking

Joe, please see the talk page; there are WAY too many wikilinks in the article. I had removed most of them, but lost it in an edit conflict with you :) I guess I'll go through it again :D. -- Avi 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi; do what u think is right. i dont know what wikipedia prefers. it would seem to me that the power of wikipedia is wikilinks. it provides a 3rd dimension to the written word. people dont know everything; it is helpful to click on a link for greater insight. as a case in point, i didnt know what a "columbāria' was. so i had to go to the dictionary. furthermore, a lot of words get passed over because they are common words, like "mutual assurance", but the key issue is what does wikipedia want? you are a lot more experienced than i am. so do what is right. joe 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb is to follow wiki's own rules, which we all learn as we go along, and all are subject to change based on consensus :). The one in question is WP:CONTEXT. The first entry of most terms that add context to the article like "insurance" or "reinsurance" should be wikilinked. "Money", "family", or "band", in my opinion, shouldn't be linked, as they do not add to the context of the article (and would likely not be footnoted in a paper version). I'm very thankful that you are adding your prodigious work to the article; remember no one owns an article, although certain editors may "adopt" an article and maintain it. If you feel something is important, let's discuss it on our or the articles talk pages, and make this article the very best it could be! -- Avi 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi: i am happy to go along with the consensus. i do beleive in the long run, that "globalism" and "diversity" and "weak language skills" on the part of young people will bring about a mindset that will take advantage of wikilinking. we are not all geniuses. joe 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully wikipedia will somewhat stem the tide of "weak language skills" et. al. :) -- Avi 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. H. Grattan Flood

Congrats on the W. H. Grattan Flood article! It is really well done for a new article. I can't add any edits as I am not familiar with the subject.  :-) Teaspae 13:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actuary maintenance list

Joe, I added you as a contact to the maintenance list on talk:Actuary, I hope you don't mind. By the way, did you paint that portrait yourself? Very impressive! -- Avi 15:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi: u have to go to bed earlier; you are staying up too late. thanks for including me on the list. i cheated on the portrait. I started with a film picture taken by my wife, then later i scanned it to digital format and touched it up with photoshop 5.5 (i believe). then i projected it onto a paper and then onto canvas and drew it. of course, now i could print it on canvas, and it would look like an oil. At some point, i had a friend who was good with oil to polish it up. the original oil is a lot better than the digital format.

also: i think wikipedia needs a small article on the theory of life contingencies. it would mostly reference text books on the subject. the theory and math notation is an important branch of math but does not appear in the wiki page on mathematics. so maybe i should write something.

also: the page on Actuarial Science is feeble. so i am adding content. i am sure i will need your editing help.

joe 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grattan Flood

I asked the user in question to justify his tag, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACalum&diff=61132560&oldid=41625641 , and if I do not hear a response, I think it can be removed. I am afraid that the user may not have fully understood WP:NPOV. It does not mean "bland" as much as it means "all conflicting points of view must be represented." -- Avi 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe, we have a much more serious problem with the article, I'm afraid. While I agree that the adulatory form is not necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV, we have the more serious issue of Wikipedia:Copyrights -- this page is extremely similar to the following article: http://www.waterfordcountylibrary.ie/library/web/Display/article/96/ which is copyrighted by the Waterford County Library, a part of Waterford County Council. The text needs to be completely rewritten; in truth, I really need to blank it out per {{copyvio}}. The information in that site may be used, if properlty referenced, but it must be re-written enough to be a new work. -- Avi 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi: do what u have to do to make it legal.

most of what is in the article is factual. do they have a copyright on the facts? further, i didnt copy their article. it wasnt useful to me. i worked off an article written by his son, also named grattan flood. and i simply took the facts. so where do you draw the line been facts and words and thoughts. in any event, i will go back and analyze the wexford article and compare facts and contents.

if i have to i will rewrte the article, but then wiki says where are the sources? a little too confusing to me.

joe 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading it again, it's only the opening paragraphs that are very similar, I think. If you could just re-write it so that it doesn't sound as if entire sentences or phrases were lifted from said article. A complete rewrite may be too strong. -- Avi 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi: u r an unbelievable source of coaching and help. you will be very successful in life.

i will start to change the article. i have other material. it will take me 24 hours or so.

btw, i was talking with bill Hsiao FSA PhD prof at Harvard. he was the leader behind RBRVS. he gave me some sources for his works in the health insurance field joe 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piob Mhor

I see you have done some edits on bagpipes including the Great Irish Warpipes page. Well the latter page needs some input from a more learned editor, also it appears to be a bit of a target for some snipeing lately, that's where some worthy citations could help. Red blaze 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

cogito ergo sum; one of the few words i remember from my philosophy major. a few of the editors or contributors to the bagpipe site do note like grattan flood. i was successfully able to get them to remover some nasty remarks about flood.

one of the quotes against flood's story of the bagpipe is repeated over and over again. so everyone is copying someone who i havent found yet.

but i will. i have lots to write about the bagpipe, the irish pipes, and 20 other subjects.

i am just getting comfortable with the protocols of wiki.

i will check you out from time to time, and hope your health allows you to make big contribtions. joe 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grattan Flood picure

Good morning, Joe. Based on the information you sent, I took the liberty of uploading the picture, together with what I believe are the appropriate image tags, and entered it in the article in an infobox. If you like it, great, if not, change it at will. I really think the picture is public domain, as it is VERY likely that the photographer is dead for over 70 years, but to play it safe I used a Fair use/with permission rationale. Hope that helps. -- Avi 14:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office of the Chief Actuary

Avi: i would like to write an article obout the office of the chief actuary. i have their permission to do it.

i will include some references and maybe some bios on some of the recent chiefs.

i hope this is ok with you.

my main questions is how to title the page?:

Office of the chief actuary? Office of the Chief Actuary? Chief Actuary (USA)?

the official title is the second one with an abbreviation of OCACT.

joe 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd take my cue from http://ftp.ssa.gov/OACT/ -- Avi 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SoA edits

Just trying to help out. It's great to see someone who knows the issues very well take an active part in making this area of Wiki so much better. Thanks! -- Avi 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bagpipers

Before you do too much work on your new article, just thought you should know that we already have List of bagpipers. Cheers, Mak (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well List of Eminent Pipers of all Ages looked like a new article to me. You might want to check whether the content would be better in the other list. Also, you might want to see Badagni's suggestions on the talk page. It's not wrong to try to make a new article, or if a section is getting too long to break it off, I just wanted to make sure you weren't unwittingly creating a duplicate article. Mak (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By article, I meant separate page. Mak (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bagpipers

I merged your "Influential Uilleann pipers" section with the previously existing "Uilleann Pipes" section. Please don't make a redundant section; there's no need for a separate listing just so we can tag certain pipers as "influential". Dsreyn 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty pages

First, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have a lot of valuable experience and are interested in contributing. If you ever need any help, you are welcome to ask me. A note about creating empty pages: This is not big deal, but you may find that they get deleted speedily. It will work out better if you create the page when you are ready to begin creating the actual article. —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary

I have undeleted the page, per WP:DRV allowing a stub article to be recreated without review, but you must put some meat-and-potatoes inthe article relatively quickly; preferably within the next day. Good Luck!-- Avi 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Well, if it is in the public domain, go for it. -- Avi 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old English (Ireland)

Heya Joe, Your suggestion on the Talk:Old English (Ireland) section was sound. However, could you lift the CAPS button in future? Thanks/ Táim an-bhuíoch díot. 193.1.172.163 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spellchecking.

No problem with the page! I do it all the time now. You would be surprised with all the spelling mistakes I come across, even on featured articles!

I might go through some of your articles which you added significant content to just to make sure! Keep up your good work though! - Erebus555 10:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the problem?

Can you point me to what you are referencing? -- Avi 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see nothing funny with your page; so let it slide for now. Also, in the future, please post your messages on my talk page at User talk:Avraham, and not on the user page itself :) Thanks, -- Avi 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Highland Bagpipe questions

I am cross-posting this from the Transposing instrument talk page:

I don't know that this instrument, which, according to User:Josephbrophy sounds about a semitone higher than the written pitch, is a transposing instrument, or is just subject to a different pitch standard. Meanwhile, I fixed the spelling and syntax of his edit. I will cross-post this to his talk page. Special-T 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about decrement tables

One of my interests is articles on birth control, and I've come across "life table methods" that are used to calculate failure rates for various contraceptive methods. I had initially (not understanding the distinction between life tables and life table methods) put a discussion of this on the life table page, but it's been removed as off-topic.

I asked on the talk page where such a discussion would correctly go, and somebody suggested asking you. Life contingencies and life table methods were suggested, but nobody was confident of which was better, or if something else entirely should be used. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So would you recommend Fertility table as an article title?

On having frequency of intercourse as a variable - that doesn't really work, because the probability of a single act of unprotected intercourse resulting in pregnancy varies from less than 1% to over 60%, depending on where in the menstrual cycle the woman is. Few women track their fertility signs closely enough to know how fertile they are day-to-day, making it impossible to accurately quantitate pregnancy risk. So birth control studies just calculate failure rates based on method and time, not on intercourse frequency. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i sent a reply but the system must have bombed out. here it is again.

the frequency of intercouse is the most important vairable; otherwise tables are useless.

i envision several tables and each table has several colums reflecting (1) daily intercourse; (2) weekend i/c; (3) some other important patterns. One set of tables wuld reflect random intercourse (i.e. with regard to menstrual cycle); and another set wherby couples or cognizant of the cycle. Thiese table then form a basis for baehavior modification.

i am sure there are some data on rape and incest that might produce meaningful results for health officials.

having just thought about the subject for a few days, i am surprised that our health officials do not have a fertility table to uncerstand the probabilities of contraception under a variety of behaviors. joe 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I came across: When used to study birth control effectiveness, a life table calculates a separate effectiveness rate for each month of the study, as well as for a standard period of time (usually 12 months). Use of life tables eliminates time-related biases (i.e. the most fertile couples getting pregnant and dropping out of the study early, and couples becoming more skilled at using the method as time goes on), and in this way is superior to the more common Pearl Index.

In studies that use life tables, usually two kinds are created. Multiple-decrement (or competing) life tables report net effectiveness rates which are useful for comparing competing reasons for couples dropping out of a study. Single-decrement (or noncompeting) life tables report gross effectiveness rates, which can be used to accurately compare one study to another.

Here is a list of studies that used life table methods to calculate the failure rate of various IUDs; none of them have intercourse as a variable.

Anyway, this is really not my area of expertise. I'm sure I'm missing way too much background knowledge to be able to intelligently discuss how to make a life table. My real question (which I've gotten side tracked in the discussion of intercourse frequency) is - what to name the article? I had another thought recently, would decrement table be appropriate? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My clearinng of blank sections

Firstly if you leave comments please leave them on my talk page not on my userpage. Secondly I go around using the random article button and if I see an article with formatting problems like blank sections I remove them. If you are in the process of updating a page like that you should use a template such as this

{{inuse}}

You can find these templates here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages under the maitnanance section SirGrant 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would secondly just like to mention that I believe this was just an accident/misunderstanding on both our parts. I should have possible checked the history while you probably should have put up the tag that the article was undergoing major renovations. Regardless the reason I did it was because I go through many articles quickly fixing major formatting errors (such as blank sections), stubbing pages, heading corrections, and capitilization. So since I go through a fairly large amount of articles quickly I just didn't happen to know yours was going under renovations and would like to apologize for any extra work I created for you. SirGrant 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but one last third thing. I saw that you are fairly new (June 06) to wikipedia. If you need to revert and go back to a previous version it is actually designed to be a simple process. It's not really intended to create a lot of work for you. You can find out how to do it here on the Reverting page SirGrant 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunapee, New Hampshire

Hi, Joseph! I saw that you moved the Geography section past the Demographics section on the Sunapee page. To keep it consistent with all the other towns in NH (and maybe all the other states, too, I don't know :), it should probably be put back. But it's up to you - I'm not too particular :) SatyrTN 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for writing back! Take a look at the page and let me know what you think of the location(s) of the picture(s) and headings. Thanks! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Geography is centered on your screen? It's left justified on mine. What browser / type of computer are you using? Are any of the other headings centered? That's totally weird... SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunapee Beach

Hi Joe! I hope you don't mind my coming in and editing your articles on Mt. Sunapee and Lake Sunapee. You've been doing all the hard work of research, and I'm just adding a few touches here and there. I wonder if you'd consider moving the photo of Mt. Sunapee Beach from the Mount Sunapee article to the Lake Sunapee one? It would seem to be a better fit, especially since the beach is across Hwy. 103 from the actual mountain. I enjoy all the information you've been adding. --Ken Gallager 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ken; thanx for the edits; i have not been spell checking, etc. i am always late doing that. you are doing a fine job making the article read better.

re the picture; i am happy to do whatever you want. i actually wanted to add a better picture of the beach, which i will take in the next few days, when it stops raining, to both lake sunapee, mt sunapee and maybe even newbury.

the beach is actually part of mt sunapee state park, even though it is across the traffic circle. were you aware of that??

you can make the final call, let me know what is best. joe 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. You're right about "Mt. Sunapee" being the name of the state park, even for the beach part. I had to double-check that, because I've always thought of it as "Sunapee Beach". Nevertheless, because (1) the beach is separated from the mountain by Route 103; and (2) you've got such a good article about Lake Sunapee, I think the beach picture and most of the details about the beach would make more sense being in the lake article. Perhaps there could be a quick mention of the beach in the mountain article, since the beach is part of the park named after the mountain. --Ken Gallager 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Sunapee: "Midwest" aquifer?

Hi Joe -- In the "Water Quality" section of the Lake Sunapee article, what do you mean by a "Midwest" aquifer that supplies the underground cold springs? The term makes me think of an aquifer that sits in the U.S. Midwest, which can't be right. Do you have the original citation for the source of the springs? I think "midwest" must mean something else. Thanks for your help. --Ken Gallager 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again -- Yes, I'd be interested in learning what the local knowledge is about the water source for the lake. I found a sand and gravel aquifer map of the area in my office and verified that there's only one small aquifer of that type next to the lake, so I changed the sentence in the article to say that the springs come from a bedrock aquifer. Unfortunately, I don't have any references about bedrock aquifer mapping. Perhaps the USGS in Pembroke has more info. See you! --Ken Gallager 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bagpipe Gracenotes

Joe,

I believe you created this image under the Wikipedia listing for bagpipes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Embellishment3.gif

Please note that item ii within the image shows an E gracenote on A, not a G gracenote on A.

Regards,

RES

RES

thanx for pointing out the error. it is fixed. joe 03:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TomGalligan.jpg

Joseph, I saw your note about wondering why this image disappeared the first time. Please read the image page's description or Template:db-noncom for more information; "non-commercial use only" is 'not acceptable on Wikipedia, because the GFDL requires that any other licensee be able to reuse the material here, even if they are using it commercially. If you can obtain another license under which that photo can be tagged, that would be helpful to getting it kept here. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. -- nae'blis 02:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nae'blis; not a problem. i will get a free use; if not; i will take a picture of the notable Dr. Galligan. They are very cooperative folks. joe 02:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nae'blis; i just talked with Lisa, secretary to Tom Galligan. She said the picture of Tom Galligan is copy right free. that was her original understanding when they gave me permisssion a month ago. She knows how wikipedia works. so i will repeat the upload. joe 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not got the message yet. There is no point in uploading Image:Presidentgalligan.jpg and putting a {{db-noncom}} tag on it! Now do the job properly, if you want the image. -- RHaworth 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

the tag i would like to use with respect to image:tomgalligan.jpg is No rights reserved but it is greyed out and not available as a tag when i try to upload the image. what is the solution?? -- joe 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The grey text "Public domain / no rights reserved" is a heading covering a number of different options in black! In fact none of the options quite fits the bill - so just give it a {{GFDL}} tag. Repeat your text I talked with tom galligan's office ... in the image description not just in the edit summary. (Strictly speaking you should go through the procedure given in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission but I will take your word for it that the college has given permission. In any case, an image that small could probably be used under the fair-use rules anyway.) -- RHaworth 01:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

thanx for your help; u r obviously a genius at this stuff whereas i am a helpless novice eeking out a miserable understanding and application of the rules. but i am relentless.

joe 01:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for sticking it out and getting an acceptable image into the encyclopedia, Joe! (oh, and you're not helpless, otherwise you'd still be trying!). -- nae'blis 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actuarial science and financial economics

Joe,

You might be interested in a new paper that just came out from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. They struck a task force earlier this year to compare CALM (Canadian actuarial accounting) to Financial Economics. A short 7 pager or so, but quite an interesting read. I don't see it on their website, but you're well connected enough to get someone to email it to you. I am not a Canadian actuary and can't access the "members" section of their website.

Regards, Deet