User talk:Kevin Lamoreau

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Hello. You shouldn't write dogs ; writing dogs has the same effect and is simpler. Similarly hyphenated, Australian, dogmatic, baptismal, etc. Michael Hardy 02:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: Also, it's spelled mathematics, not mathemetics; hence mathematician, not mathemetician. Michael Hardy 02:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, please don't use too many capitals in section headings; see Manual of Style and my edits to mean. Michael Hardy 02:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I finally remembered to respond at Talk:Whitney embedding theorem. Melchoir 20:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your exotic queries
Wikipedia Talk pages are for discussions related to improving the associated article. They are not provided for any other purpose. In particular, fishing around with general questions is normally not allowed, and I have deleted this material. See WP:TALKPAGE for further guidelines. Choor monster (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't thought about that. I figured it might be something some people who visited those talk three pages might know, and that others might be interested in it, too.  I've never done anything like what I did earlier this evening before, and decided I would be a jerk about it (you're "This isn't a blog" in your edits might have been overkill, but I shouldn't have called you what I called you earlier on this page), but I then came to my senses.  Peace. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy endings. No offense taken.  Choor monster (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I just finished answering one of those leftover questions at Talk:Cross-polytope, without considering that the question itself didn't belong.  Joule36e5 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Maine House of Representatives
Not sure why you'd change the vacancies to one, because there are...two vacancies (DeChant's seat, which will be filled this week, and Denno's). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the last entry in the "{percentage|56|149|1}"s (or "{percentage|56|149|2}"s as you had it before my latest edit (I took out the outer brace so you could see the syntax), that 1 or 2 controls how many decimal places the percentage is rounded to (0 means round to the nearest 1%, 1 means round to the nearest 0.1%, 2 means round to the nearest 0.01%, and so on). It doesn't do floating 0s so if you're rounding to the nearest 0.1% (1 as the third entry), 6/149 (4.02684563...%) shows up as "4%" rather than "4.0%". I don't think that third entry has anything to do with the number of vacancies (subtracting the number of voting member (i.e. non-tribal) vacancies from 151 takes care of that). Try using the preview option and experimenting with different numbers for the third number, like 7. I was hoping changing the third number to -2 would round the percentages to 100% for the Democrats and 0% for every other group, but anything less than 0 is treated the same as 0 (round to the nearest 1%). Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maine House of Representatives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin O'Connell ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Maine_House_of_Representatives check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Maine_House_of_Representatives?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Maine House of Representatives
 * added links pointing to Richard Evans, Joseph Underwood, Arthur Bell, Kyle Bailey and Daniel Newman
 * Maine Senate
 * added a link pointing to Richard Bennett

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Maine House of Representatives
 * added links pointing to Richard Evans, Joseph Underwood, Arthur Bell and Daniel Newman

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Maine Senate diagram
I saw your revert of my edit of the Maine Senate diagram. You're correct about the issue with the number of Democrat and GOP members, the wiki table I was using as a reference was outdated. That is something I will gladly fix.

As for the symmetry issue, that was due to my trying to show the Senate President affiliation within the context of the seating arraignments. Now looking at the image I can see how that could be an issue. In keeping with other wiki-legislature diagrams I like the idea of showcasing a chamber based on the actual seating arrangement (something that many legislature pages do). In my opinion legislature specific images makes the page less generic and showcase a particular legislature's uniqueness and idiosyncrasies to the reader. I would like to reupload the image with these corrections. However, I do not want to get into an edit/revert war. Do you have any other objections or thoughts?

Tpwissaa (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tpwissaa. Thanks for reaching out.
 * I now understand your goal (which you had referred to in your naming of the Senate diagram) and can see the benefit of the diagram being less generic. I know when Troy Jackson, the current State Senate President, first assumed that position, he got rid of the traditional division between Democratic and Repubican Senators in terms of seating, and House Speaker Sara Gideon did the same (although she hadn't in her first term as Speaker of the House, when Republicans still controlled the Maine Senate). I don't know how well that was received across party lines (it may be that Republicans felt things were just as partisan, but now there were Democrats around them telling them to be quiet). But at one point it was really intermixed. And seating changes won't be public knowledge as much as changes in the members of a body, although I suppose one could try and contact Senate staff for information every time someone resigns or switches parties to see if there will be a seating change. But the staff people probably would not feel able say, or make an accurate prediction. So I'm somewhat cool (leaning opposed) to the idea, but not irreversibly so. But I'd want it to be done accurately if at all. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I now understand your goal (which you had referred to in your naming of the Senate diagram) and can see the benefit of the diagram being less generic. I know when Troy Jackson, the current State Senate President, first assumed that position, he got rid of the traditional division between Democratic and Repubican Senators in terms of seating, and House Speaker Sara Gideon did the same (although she hadn't in her first term as Speaker of the House, when Republicans still controlled the Maine Senate). I don't know how well that was received across party lines (it may be that Republicans felt things were just as partisan, but now there were Democrats around them telling them to be quiet). But at one point it was really intermixed. And seating changes won't be public knowledge as much as changes in the members of a body, although I suppose one could try and contact Senate staff for information every time someone resigns or switches parties to see if there will be a seating change. But the staff people probably would not feel able say, or make an accurate prediction. So I'm somewhat cool (leaning opposed) to the idea, but not irreversibly so. But I'd want it to be done accurately if at all. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Kevin Lamoreau.

I understand your apprehensions concerning the issue. I don't think it needs to be as specific as you mentioned though. My original intent was not to showcase the specific seating of each Senator within the chamber, rather to show the balance of partisan power within the chamber using the aesthetic of the seating arrangement for the reasons I mentioned above. I absolutely agree the portrayal of the literal seating of Senators for each session is a task too big for someone to bear. The diagram you reverted back to with your edit does not show the specific seating either. As far as I understand it is not common for wiki diagrams to showcase the exact seating arrangements for members of a chamber rather to show the partisan composition of a chamber for the reader of an article. The diagram I created, and will happily fix based on your concerns, was meant to not be overly specific with the minutia of the Maine Senate seating, rather help enhance the experience of the reader. I might not have been as clear as I could have in my initial message to you, maybe this was cause for some of the issues you mentioned. I hope I made my intentions clear here. With the corrected image I will remove the speaker circle and place it back within the symmetrical arrangement. This way the image will not go down the road you mentioned, and will only be aesthetically different from the one you reverted back to all the while maintaining the chair/desk arraignment that is physically in the chamber. Respectfully Tpwissaa (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood. Yeah, with the Parliament Diagram tool I used (I used the "Arch-style diagram" and manually put in the correct party names and standard color codes, but could have used the US-style diagram and gotten equivalent or nearly equivalent results), 35 is almost at the bottom of the four-row range (which goes from 34 through 61), so the dots are spread out and it's not very aesthetically pleasing. I don't know if you're the kind of person who would enjoy plugging in numbers for a hypothetical chamber of increasing size and seeing what the output is, but I've had fun with that in the past. 4-5 and 16 are really bad.
 * Go ahead with what you propose for the Senate diagram (on the Maine Senate article and the one for the whole Maine Legislature), but I'd say to keep the House diagram as it is. 151 is toward the bottom of the 7-row range (139 through 189) with that tool, but when you get that many rows the aesthetic difference between the bottom and the top of a range isn't as great. Plus, in the House, with over 4 times as many members, you're more likely to see changes like someone resigning (or passing away) or someone like Rep. John Andrews (formerly an R) being upset with his committee assignment (technically done by the Dem speaker but from what I can tell the custom of letting the minority leaders choose their members assignments given the allotted seats was kept) and becoming a Libertarian (though they lack "official" ballot status in Maine so he's technically an "Unenrolled" voter now, just like the Independents)... stuff like that happens a lot more in the House, so having to make a new table without the Parliament Diagram tool whenever there's a change would be a _____ (rhymes with witch). If the way it turns out has an obvious error or otherwise is very different from what I expect I'll let you know so we can discuss how to fix it rather than just reverting it. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead with what you propose for the Senate diagram (on the Maine Senate article and the one for the whole Maine Legislature), but I'd say to keep the House diagram as it is. 151 is toward the bottom of the 7-row range (139 through 189) with that tool, but when you get that many rows the aesthetic difference between the bottom and the top of a range isn't as great. Plus, in the House, with over 4 times as many members, you're more likely to see changes like someone resigning (or passing away) or someone like Rep. John Andrews (formerly an R) being upset with his committee assignment (technically done by the Dem speaker but from what I can tell the custom of letting the minority leaders choose their members assignments given the allotted seats was kept) and becoming a Libertarian (though they lack "official" ballot status in Maine so he's technically an "Unenrolled" voter now, just like the Independents)... stuff like that happens a lot more in the House, so having to make a new table without the Parliament Diagram tool whenever there's a change would be a _____ (rhymes with witch). If the way it turns out has an obvious error or otherwise is very different from what I expect I'll let you know so we can discuss how to fix it rather than just reverting it. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sad to say that yes I am the kind of person that likes to play around with the Parliament tool. Couldn't agree more with respect to the House, I will leave it as is. And yes, please reach out if there is another issue you see once it is uploaded. Best regards, Tpwissaa (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Maine House of Representatives
I noticed that you blanked a large part of Maine House of Representatives, leaving an empty table. Could you please revert your edit? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the info I blanked was for the previous term, and the new term began on December 7. The districts (and the district numbers) were changed too, with them now going from north to south rather than from south to north. And there was other stuff in that edit that was 100% accurate while a reverted version wouldn't be. I was hoping someone would see that and add in the info themselves, as I didn't want to do it, but maybe I should. I noticed a bot added in the leaders. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)