User talk:Phil Bordelon

Bouré

Seems like you're more or less the internet's only expert on Bouré—and for that I'm already deep in your debt. I was wondering, though: what's the rationale for the rule that if you don't have the led suit, and you can't beat current trump, you need to play trump anyway? That seems to me just a good avenue for frustration and an area where the player is beaten down by the rules—but I don't know the game as well as you. Let me know what you think. —Z. D. Smith

Well, you're asking for the "rationale" of rules to a game primarily played by drunk Cajuns, so the following statements will be hypothetical, I'm afraid. That said, from my own play I find that it's mainly a way to make play more interesting by making the chance of a bouré that much more likely, thereby increasing the stakes and therefore the "danger" of play. It also helps to keep people from hoarding trumps quite so much--firstly because they're gonna have to lose them to higher trumps anyway, and secondly because they know that they're gonna have to lose them, and therefore play them earlier ... making play more interesting, again. That said, I'm a firm believer in the power of tinkering, so if you play a night without forced trumps, I'd love to hear how it goes. (Pretty much everyone I've ever asked about the rules of Bouré plays with forced trumps, though.) Phil Bordelon

Thanks for the quick reply; I will indeed let you know how it goes. Unfortunately, bigger than the problem (for a Yankee such as myself) of whether or not to play with forced trumps is simply getting folks to play Bouré at all. Always seems to go, you've got some folks together for cards, and naturally it falls to Hold 'Em. Maybe I get the chance to teach a couple of them how to play Bouré, but only talk of playing it is maybe for the next time, which of course always falls on poker night. Seems to me that what this internet really needs is an increased Bouré presence. —Z. D. Smith

I've always been interested in writing a 'net client for Bouré, but I've never had the time. That said, if someone like PokerStars would implement Bouré I'd be there like ... something that moves really fast. One of the problems would be dealing with all of the variations, though. Any arbitrary ruleset they pick would piss some people off. Bouré doesn't have a standards body (unless you want to count, uh, me. -grin-) Phil Bordelon 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article Phil. I wrote the other Bourré article, not realizing that you had written this one. I suggest we merge these things. RPellessier | Talk 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of that 'no-low' variant. Interesting. I'm up for a merge, but I haven't had much time to work on W'p recently, I'm afraid. :/ Phil Bordelon 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You found the one paragraph I didn't write! They don't play that way in Lafayette, or Breaux Bridge, or Cankton. I will test that version contributed by someone else when I go back to Lafayette for the holidays, or see if I can look up Preston Guidry. RPellessier | Talk 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say if we merge it just don't worry about the No-Lo bit, perhaps adding it as a variant at the bottom. There's no substantiation of its existence, but then again, do WE have substantiation? You have that book, and I have years of play, but other than conversations with family members it's not something I can point to for people to read. Hoyle's still doesn't have it ... Phil Bordelon 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All true. No-Lo is unverifiable, unless it came from some other documented game, like hearts. We'll leave it out unless we can verify it. I'll say as much on the talk page for the version I wrote. RPellessier | Talk 04:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the adds I made to the Talk:Bourré page, it is a transcription of the Rules in the Scott Bar, circa 1980. I think your Grandmother's 4 of diamonds rule is in rule 6. RPellessier | Talk 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Chit-Chat

Archive 1 (Ancient Mists of Time - June 2004)

Nikoli puzzles

Good job with the list of Nikoli's works! It gives me a goal to shoot for. - ZM Zotmeister 16:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to provide. I've actually been in a bit of dialog with the folks over there; my goal is to make pretty much all of their non-Japanese-language puzzles doable without having to bug 'em. Phil Bordelon 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice. I suppose I'm in a financial dialogue with them: I've bought around twenty books from them and am about to order roughly ten more. I like to give them away as prizes for solving my own puzzles (on my LiveJournal). - ZM Zotmeister 22:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I don't want to count how many of their books I bought over the last couple of months. I'd be willing to guess ~60. They take up ~3ft of shelf space under my computer. Thankfully I've bought pretty much everything I want ... for now, at least. :) Phil Bordelon 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filomino is one of my favorites. It was a pleasure adding to the article. I'm presently running a contest out of my LJ to see who can make the most efficient puzzle (fewest givens) for a 6×6 grid without any matching polyomino sizes in the solution (specifically, there must be one 1-omino, one 2-omino, and so on up to 8-omino). Time to look at the Hashiwokakero article now, but I'm not sure how much help I'll be there... - ZM Zotmeister 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Described vs. Known

When a new species of something is found, a scientist will usually take specimens, and do rigorous test to figure out where, taxonomically, it fits. For example, disection, colouration etc. Once they have done this, they write a paper, and "describe" the species. Once it is peer reviewed, and generally accepted, it is added to taxonmic resources, which list all species of a certain group. There is however, a problem with this in some organisms. For example, there are species of plant, which cannot be described because they do not mature for twenty years (and therefore do not flower), and cannot be properly described. These species of plant are "known", but not described, and are therefore not part of the taxonomic resources. When someone counts the plant species of the world from one of these resources, it does not include it, and therefore they say there is *a number* of "described species". There is a slightly larger number of "known species". This does not apply as much for frogs as it does plants, however there were 20 new species of frog recently found in New Guinea, and I don't think they have been described yet. I hope that makes sense.--liquidGhoul 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill-It-In

Thanks! I'm sorry I didn't check for other articles that meant the same thing before I started writing. Thanks for doing that for me.Sidious1701 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am Phil_Bordelon on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Phil-Bordelon. Thanks. --Phil Bordelon 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The No Game

I have nominated The No Game, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The No Game. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Step hen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created is about to be deleted: Tools which can help you

The article you created, The_No_Game is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The_No_Game.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poke (game) is also being deleted. travb (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your old user and talk pages

Hi Phil, I've history merged your old user and talk pages, so all the edits for them are in one place. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind at all. I was using what was available with the tools back then; newer is, in this case, better. Phil Bordelon (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tanbo

The article Tanbo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alak (board game)

The article Alak (board game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, and mo indication of notability of the game is given.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tanbo for deletion

The article Tanbo is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 13:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 14:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andantino (game)

The article Andantino (game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage in independent reliable sources not found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]