User talk:TommyKirchhoff

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Van Tucky 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Neijia/Wudangquan
I have replied to your complaint here. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a section to the Wudangquan discussion page, but maybe I should have put it here. Not sure! Still new! Please see the Wudang Chuan discussion page for my comments. Thank you! Jendownunder (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wudang
My understanding is that you have been told before that there is no such link connecting Tai Chi Chuan with Wudang, and that a prominent researcher (Henning ) has already disproved such claim. In a Wikipedia article about the LeiTai competition that you mention, where the internal vs external differentiation of the Chinese Martial Arts would be very relevant (Central Guoshu Institute), such differentiation is not even mentioned, let alone the Wudang connection of Tai Chi Chuan.

If you have documented proof that Henning is wrong, then you should write your text including those references. Otherwise, whatever you write, however true and correct you think it is, it can only be regarded as personal opinion, and therefore you cannot expect it to be accepted into Wikipedia.

Bruno 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fasting
While the Fasting article has some references, it is far from being references to the level that it needs to. That's why it has a refimprove tag, and not an unreferenced tag. Note the following problems: There are more subsections that are unreferenced, compared to the sections that have references, and that's why the refimprove tag is quite appropriate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Christianity section has subsections which are either (1) referenced by primary sources which are typically not enough (see WP:PSTS which states that Wikipedia should depend mostly on secondary sources) or (2) virtually unreferenced (i.e. Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodox Churches, etc)
 * The Hinduism section is completely unreferenced
 * The Islam section has almost no references
 * The Jainism section has no references
 * The Judaism section has no references
 * on and on.

Vandalism
I think you should consider what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia. Good-faith efforts to improve the wiki are not vandalism--be careful when you accuse others.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. In the heat of reversion, I forgot to add the tilds. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wudang and Shaolin
Hi Tommy.

I'm not at all familiar with martial arts scholarship, but your apparent assertion in Wudang chuan that "Wudang" refers to all internal martial arts and "Shaolin" refers to all external martial arts is totally strange to me. I know some small amount about traditional martial arts from non-academic sources and I've never heard of that being how people refer to things. You've sourced that statement to "Xing Yi Quan Xue" in the Wudang article -- is that really the source for that statement? Would you mind pointing me to where in that book that statement is supported?

I do see that statement in Henning's paper -- I'm not entirely sure that Henning's paper is a reliable source, for reasons I've hinted at on the talk page, but if the statement is really supported in "Xing Yi Quan Xue" then I wouldn't object to it also being sourced to Henning's paper.

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard
A discussion's started up about you over at WP:FTN, though I can't understand why, since what was quoted is pretty unremarkable. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was probably undue to mention this at FTN. It's just that last time I took a Chinese martial arts (CMA) topic to FTN, I got some very valuable feedback. So, TommyKirchhoff, I do not question your expertise in this field, and I do not doubt your good faith. I just question some of your editorial choices and judgements. There is no reason not to resolve this amicably.

I find your addition to the Central Guoshu Institute of dubious merit, but I am sure this can be resolved. Your additions to Wudang chuan are fine, no doubt, I just question your insistence to recreate this article in the first place. From what I have seen, this can just as easily be kept under Neijia. Yes I realize the terms aren't strict synonyms. This isn't a problem as WP:NOTDICT, we have lots of redirects that aren't to strict synonyms. Regarding my "dabbling" in CMA topics in general, you will agree that many articles here are in deplorable shape, and for example Wudang Sword, Chinese swordsmanship and related articles are just in dire need of cleanup and editorial attention. You are most welcome to look after these problems, but as long as nobody else does the job, I will take it upon myself to attempt to try and bring some order to this giant mess. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the fact that your expertise is based on first-hand interviews with a Chinese martial arts master tends to bring you in conflict with WP:V and WP:RS. Specifically, I would like to see solid evidence for your claim that it is specifically a "Western mistake" to identify the terms Neijia and Wudangquan. Further, regarding your phrasing that
 * "[Neijia] styles are enumerated by Sun Lutang as Tàijíquán, Xíngyìquán and Bāguàzhǎng,  but must also include Bājíquán and the legendary Wudang Sword."

I cannot make sense of your use of "must". Is this a mistake for "most"? Or are you actually saying "the styles ... must also include Bājíquán and Wudang Sword"? What does this mean? Are you citing someone's opinion, or are you presenting this as a necessary conclusion to be drawn by the reader? --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Central Guoshu Institute had three stages: Organizational, Talent Hunting, and Operational. The Fu Zhen Song anecdote I add there is of the utmost importance, as it describes how Fu won the first major talent hunt competition; this led to his operational position as the head of BaGua for the entire country. I paraphrase the anecdote from FZS Dragon BGZ book so as not to plagiarize it.


 * As I wrote on the talk:Wudang chuan page, the Chinese link zh:内家拳 makes it very clear that the moniker "Wudang" goes hand in hand with the Chinese martial arts of Tai Chi, BaGua & XingYi. The term "Neijia" does not appear to be on the page, although I'm only translating it through Google translate. Sheerly, the number of references I cite here with the term "Wudang" in the name should suggest that unless the references on the Neijia page were as complete, Neijia is the page that should disappear (and i don't think it should).
 * I agree that other pages need a bunch of work. I have tried to contribute to other pages, but do not have endless hours to pour into research, writing, and arguing over what I've contributed. I focus my energy on what is near and dear, and try to have a life besides.


 * Perhaps my interviews with my teacher create a conflict-- but I have done stellar work here with excellent research from reputable sources, excellently succinct writing, and a strong resolve to uphold the facts. Indeed, I say I have done a better job with the Wudang Page than many other pages out there, including the Neijia page and some pages you reference. The fact that you and many other people still want to merge the Wudang page with the Neijia page exemplifies the "Western mistake" of ignoring the usage, etymology, and philology of the way the Wudang page is both written and referenced. Also, if you read the Wudang discussion page, you would have seen the exact quote I use from the Sun Lu Tang book, which conveys that the quote was writtin in the foreword by renowned martial arts historian, Dan Miller (is there a way to fix the reference ?). Why buck what I'm saying. Yes, my teacher told me that Neijia is a muh more broad term that "includes ALL of the internal martial arts and Qigong." The website I referenced may not be up to snuff, but it does reinforce the differences I describe between Wudang and Neijia. But more importantly, the references I use on the Wudang page have the word "Wudang" in them; so does the Chinese interwiki link you exhumed. The Neijia page has no such accolade. So in this instance, I believe it's crystal clear that my first-hand interviews are not creating conflict, but assisting me with an accurate portrayal on the Wudang page. I don't have time to fix Neijia, but it has been mostly accurate. I spend a lot of time here arguing over what I know to be true, from books, magazines, and first-hand interviews with the world's number one Wudangquan grandmaster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguFezmLoIg


 * How can the article convey this sentiment?:

"Wudangquan includes only TCC, XYQ, BGZ, Bajiquan and Wudang Sword because the organizers of the Central Guosho Institute said so" TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your report at WP:AN3 was not readable
Hello TommyKirchoff. I undid your report at WP:AN3 because the header was garbled. It was not possible to figure out who you were reporting. In any case, please be aware that it takes four reverts to show a violation of WP:3RR, and your report only included three. Please double-check your data, be sure you have a case, fix the header and consider resubmitting. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Athletes etc
Hi Tommy. Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page.

I can understand your argument about "sportsperson" and "athlete", but I think linguistically there is a little bit more going on than first appears:
 * First we have the idea of the sportsman – as in the hunter/fisher type – which links in with the whole phrase of "hunting for sport". (On a side note: This actually ties into the original root of the word "sport", which relates to the French meaning recreation and mixes in ideas of activities for pleasure and amusement).
 * Secondly we have the direct meaning of sportspeople – that is to say, a person who participates in sports.
 * Third, we have the far more narrow meaning of athlete, used in the UK and elsewhere, as someone who specifically competes in the sport of athletics (as governed by the IAAF).

I leave the fourth variation until last because it is the most complex. It is the idea of an athlete in the way which you understand it. There has been little intelligent conversation on this concept here thus far (hence why the sportsperson article is a fuddled load of crap – in my opinion anyway). The problem comes in thinking that athlete is just a synonym of sportsperson. This is not the case, otherwise no one would ever have to consider questions such as this.

The idea of an athlete is not just someone who competes in any random sport, but rather those sports which require athleticism. While a great number of popular sports have this aspect, there are still some prominent ones which do not – horse riding/racing, driving sports etc. Is an F1 driver an athlete? Is a jockey an athlete? The answer is not really clear cut because the idea of the "athlete" is so inherently (and historically) tied to the qualities of athletic sports (that physicality is less apparent in horse racing, for instance). Once we branch out into the boundaries of what is considered a sport and what is a game – bowling or pool for example – we find ourselves even less inclined to use the "athlete" label.

Linguistically, German is very useful is distinguishing these concepts. Their athlet is used to define the more physical, athletic people (athletes). Their very useful Sportler term does not have any of these connotations and instead just strictly means a person who does sport (consider if English had "sporters" taking part in sport, just as "footballers" take part in football).

Taking all this into account, we can see there are two of these concepts which are not adequately covered by a wikipedia article – the idea of the recreational huntsman, and the idea of the athlete – meaning a person who competes in sports involving physical athleticism. It could be possible to incorporate an "athlete" section into the current, wider "sportsperson" topic, or athlete could be set up as an article of its own. What do you think? SFB 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bagua cites
For additional bagua sources - if there are portions of the article that are currently unsourced, or if there is important new information that the sources could provide, then choose a few of the better ones and use them for specific citations (not just bunching them after something that would require, at best, a single cite). Or, if they cover material already well-described in the article but could be of extra value to a reader, select one or two of the best (preferably ones that provide an overview, as this is really an overview article) and put them in the references section. Hope that helps (though I can't be of much help on the wudang article right now). Ergative rlt (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Athletics
Regarding your edit here to Athletics (disambiguation), pasting material copied from the dab page Athletics: This is not an acceptable way to move a page, because it separates the page from its edit history. If you think the page should be moved, please follow the procedure for requested moves to initiate a discussion about the proposed move. Regards, -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Copied from User talk:ShelfSkewed:
 * Hi Shelf, I read the pages you suggested, but did not raise a discussion about changing the page names. There are a lot of people who have been only slightly more than idle in discussing the "Athletics" page names and contents for years-- so I boldly tried to change the names again. The "move" function did not change that name as I thought it would, and now I have a little mess. Would you mind reading my talk page, and perhaps helping me out of the mess ? I have read the page on disambiguation, and your response here (just above) regarding dab pages. I agree, and believe a Google search should not land on a disambiguation page, as it does with "Athletics." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)''
 * The only way the pages can be moved correctly is with the intervention of an admin, and I very much doubt any admin would unilaterally decide to make such a move without discussion. As I noted above, the best way to proceed is to initiate a requested move discussion.
 * As far as outside searches landing on a disambiguation page: In cases where term is genuinely ambiguous, then I disagree with your opinion that users being directed to a dab page is a bad thing. You write below that "the 'disambiguation' asks the searcher another question (what do you mean?) rather than providing content". Well, yes, this is often the best solution (e.g. Mercury) as opposed to offering them content they don't want and forcing them to search further for what they do want. But it is true that it is often possible to determine a primary topic (e.g. LSD) for an ambiguous term and send the large majority of users directly to the content they are after, and perhaps this is the case with Athletics and Athletics (overview). In fact, it looks like this might be a case where WP:DABCONCEPT applies. But again, you won't be able to make these moves without a discussion and help from an admin.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help renaming/moving/fixing...
I strongly believe internet searches should not land the searcher on a WP disambiguation page, as in essence, the "disambiguation" asks the searcher another question (what do you mean?) rather than providing content. I tried to move some page names, and have made a little mess. I would like to boldly change Athletics to its proper name of Athletics (disambiguation), and redirect the Athletics page to Athletics (overview); or if the British gentlemen still believe the much more narrow article Athletics (sport) is more important, let's redirect Athletics there. But let's not have someone searching "Athletics" on Google land on a content-less disambiguation page. Please help. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A Google search will pick up a page with the word "Athletics" in it whether or not it has "(disambiguation)" in its title, so I'm not sure how far your suggestion would help. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, it won't make any difference to Google at all. We can't keep changing the way we do things to keep up with the foibles of various search engines anyway - we should stick to naming our disambiguation pages according to Disambiguation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I made no reference to "changing the way we do things;" in fact, I believe what I am suggesting IS the way we do things i.e. a search for "Mercury" does not land on the disambiguation page, but links to various WP content, Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), etc. What I am suggesting has nothing to do with search engines and the way they operate, but that Athletics is a befuddled mess because the disambiguation page has priority over the content pages. That just can't be right. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But "I strongly believe internet searches should not land the searcher on a WP disambiguation page" is precisely the reason you gave for wanting to make this change! Forget searches, because that is irrelevant - there's no "priority" that we can alter in Google searches (and if it's not search priority, then what priority are you talking about?) Google's priority is related to the number of incoming links a page has (amongst other things) and changing the title will not change that. And the Google rankings change dynamically anyway, so the top hit today might be the 10th hit next week, etc - trying to optimize search engine results by changing article titles is a futile exercise. If there is no clear primary topic, a disambiguation page should not have "(disambiguation)" added to it - that's what the MOS says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got dragged away and had to finish quickly. I wanted to add that if you think there is a MOS-based reason for changing the naming of these articles, one which has nothing whatsoever to do with search engine results, I'd suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Athletics to see what the consensus says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping the conversation in one place :) I believe search engine optimization is critical to the "starving" Wikipedia; but maybe that's for another day. Let's forget search engines. In the case of Athletics, there is a clear primary topic into which all succeeding listings fit. I believe that merits a "(disambiguation)" in the title of the dab page. A WP search for Athletics should land on the clear primary topic, shouldn't it ? I wrote nearly the entirety of Athletics (overview), and the project manager has confirmed that the page is okay. Now I'm trying to clean up the catalog. The changes I am suggesting are reasonable, but seemingly beyond my WP abilities to execute.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please drop the idea of searching altogether, as it is really not relevant at all for deciding on DAB naming? Which article do you think is the clear primary topic for the "Athletics" title? (and we really should be having this discussion at Talk:Athletics, so other people can join in - would you care to start it there, or shall I?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been mostly having the discussion with myself on the Talk:Athletics (sport) page. The fact that I had to write the Athletics (overview) page in 2011 coupled with the monologues I'm having with myself on that Talk page leave me wondering how to start the discussion you suggest. But since this is my quest, I suppose I should be the one to start it.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted on Talk:Athletics. I doubt anyone will look at it or respond; so any help you can give to straighten out the mess would be great. Athlete should also be the name of the article instead of Sportsperson, but getting anything to happen in that project is extremely difficult because the British editors have overzealously slanted all the pages to imply that "athletics" and "athlete" are the narrow "track and field, and footracing" connotation/denotation.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation? Many more people are watching that page.  --Tesscass (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Athletics (content)
A tag has been placed on Athletics (content), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Athletics (overview)


The article Athletics (overview) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A content fork of athletics (sport) and athletic sports, though nothing like them as it consists of a list of disparate and dubious points with poor quality sources.

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 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 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. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * JohnBlackburne-- seems you should be suggesting the deletion of the stub Athletic sports rather than suggesting the much longer, and much more thoroughly-referenced Athletics (overview) be deleted, hmm ?

Nomination of Athletics (overview) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Athletics (overview) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Athletics (overview) 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. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't take offense! I started the article at athletic sports because it gave it a distinct title and I had thought that the term was entirely analogous with athletics (rather than roughly analogous). For me, the ideal outcome is to have the two different athletics terms at their own "Athletics (X)" titles, where their "X"s concisely differentiate the two. The preservation of the athletics sports article is not very high up on my agenda, as long as the information is covered well elsewhere.
 * I entirely understand the imperfections of the current athletics (sport) title. For me the problem is that the most obvious disambiguator choice, Athletics (track and field), presents an unusual dilemma: (a) by definition it must be an article which describes athletics first and foremost, which covers the sports of track/XC/road and racewalking, while (b) it will likely confuse American readers who will probably be expecting just a track and field article. Before I separated the topics, which were previously sited at Athletics (track and field), that article was a mish-mash of both the title's topics and even historical athletics in general (see here for example). Cross country was not even mentioned. Thus I made the decision to create the Athletics (sport) article as an umbrella article covering the sports and their inter-related natures, while the sub-sport articles (including plain track and field) would be more in-depth.
 * By this reasoning, I chose the (sport) disambiguator, but it now presents us with the problem that that title could be used to refer to either meaning of athletics – undermining the whole point of the disambiguation! I think the athletics articles both need new disambiguators. The best I've got at the moment (Athletics (IAAF) and Athletics (US)) are still inelegant, if not effective. I'll keep racking my brains! SFB 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're onto something good there, and that those two names are better than what we have. There might be a clue to overall disambiguation in that the U.S. uses "athletics" to mean:
 * 1. The general thing described on Athletics (overview) 2. Track & field & maybe footracing (commonly used at the university level) 3. The Oakland Athletics and the many U.S. university teams named "Athletics."(JohnBlackburne did not understand that the University of Michigan calls its sports teams Wolverines and not Athletics)
 * We use "athletics" to mean many things, not just "athletic sports" in general. It seems the British or international English lexicon employs the use of "athletics" to only mean track & field & footracing. I suppose in that regard, the US usage is more ambiguous than the international denotation.
 * I am the busiest guy on planet earth. It's sometimes hard to believe I let myself spend so much time and energy here :) TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it has been energy well spent if the article comes to fruition. If not, at least you've improved my understanding of the word.
 * Well, following a bit of closing and un-closing going on at the deletion discussion, I've been a bit bold and done some merging and moving of content. You can see my rationale at Talk:Athletics (overview). The article (which I've merged with Athletic sports and added a little) is now located at Athletics (US). SFB 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks great to me; and Athletics (IAAF) would immediately tell a Yank, " this is probably not the Athletics you're searching for." I would like to give myself a breather, but I would also like to see Sportsperson namechange back to Athlete. I have been willing to help fix inbound links, as some folks have expressed "they are a mess." But I don't know how to find them. I have an interest in the project as a whole. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"The changes you made to Wudang Quan are egregious mistakes."
I have left a detailed rebuttal of your smackdown of my edits on the Wudang quan talk page. I notice, on reading your talk page, that I am far from the first person to attempt to set you straight on the relationship between the Wudang tradition and other internal martial arts. Unfortunately, I also doubt if I will be the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChengduTeacher (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wudang, Neijia and Aikido
You are persistent, and have nudged me correctly to find the proper reference as to why Aikido is grouped in Neijia. I reverted again and provided the web citation, but I'm not exactly sure how to cite a web page. In this Neijia FAQ Aikido is clearly included: https://www.qi-journal.com/Taiji.asp?Name=Neijia%20FAQ&-token.D=Article TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask for your help. MonkBot changed the citation (above) so that it no longer references or links to the FAQ page. Again, I am not sure how to correctly cite a URL page, which is perhaps why it was changed. Can you help? TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding to your April message. The link that you originally added to Wudang quan was not the URL above.  The URL you kept re-adding with your reverts of my not in citation was http://www.qi-journal.com/Taiji.asp?-token.SearchID=NeijiaFAQ, which is just a list of article titles and summaries, and contains no mention of aikido.  That is why I added the not in citation.  I didn't respond to your first message above because I didn't notice that you'd specified a slightly different URL than the bogus one you kept reverting into the article (so it appeared you couldn't be reasoned with).
 * Monkbot did not change the URL you added to the article. On April 26, 134.29.178.231 marked your URL as dead, and provided an archived copy of it from archive.org (presumably the www.qi-journal.com site was temporarily down); however, it did not alter either copy of the URL.  Then on September 19, Monkbot merely changed the deprecated "|dead-url=Yes" parameter to its new standard form, "|url-status=dead".  Note that if you go to click on "View history" for a page, you can then click on the "prev" link for each edit to see exactly what that user changed from the prev ious version.
 * So the URL that needs to be added to the article is instead the https://www.qi-journal.com/Taiji.asp?Name=Neijia%20FAQ&-token.D=Article one you give above (note the "-token.D=Article" rather than "-token.SearchID=NeijiaFAQ"), and I've just edited the article to remove the archived version of your original incorrect http://www.qi-journal.com/Taiji.asp?-token.SearchID=NeijiaFAQ URL and have added the correct one. --Dan Harkless (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Tai chi Move Discussion
I recently started a move discussion for the Tai chi page that you may be interested in, given the discussion you had with Nø in 2019. Best, SilverStar54 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)