"

Wikilinks
How territorial of you to undo all my wikilinks just so you could put them all back yourself. Some of them you didn't even put back right, hence the friendly notice left on your talk page; you still have some DAB links left. How is this clearer and who does that? Who will purposely undo what a previous editor didwhich actually helped the pagejust so they could micromanage a page and do it all over again themselves... but worse. I don't get it. I followed your dance-style-on-the-card rule and I added wikilinks which weren't there before. We were on the SAME SIDE Snow. We both want a better page. Pay attention. If you were thinking clearly instead of obsessing over a page you think belongs to you, all you would have had to do after I originally added the wikilinks is fix mambo, tango, b-boying, and kalinka (they all linked to disam pages). Then everything would have linked fine. Instead you undo everything I linked. Then you (re)add links all back and end up creating more disambiguation links than what existed before. You even linked to some pages which aren't even helpful. Example: you changed ""Tap dance"" back to ""Tap dancing"" and ""Krumping"" back to ""Krump"". The only reason why I changed the way the words ended in the first place was to provide a link directly to their respective articles instead of to the redirects (not because I'm being subjective). But you change the links back so that they point to the redirects. It's not like your helping people in their understanding. All you did was link those dance styles back to redirect pages instead of to the actual articles. How petty is that. Take Bollywood for another example. Are you aware of the fact that Bollywood dance redirects to Hindi dance songs? Not to mention the fact that there's also a big huge original research banner at the top of that article. How is this article going to help someone understand Bollywood dance better than the Dance in India article which is where I linked it to before you reverted my edit. If you really didn't like it pointing to that article you could have at least linked it to Bollywood#Bollywood song and dance this time. Either way, at least people reading those pages would understand the dance better than reading an article about Hindi dance songs which has very few citations. Stop being selfish and think about the readers.

Final thoughts
By-the-way, regardless of how the show presents street dance, ""old school"" is two words and breaking will always be hip-hop dance considering it is one of the pillars of hip-hop culture. That's a fact and not subjective. Read a book, watch a documentary, or educate yourself some other way if you don't want to hear me out. I'm going to change ""old school"" back to two words because it's good grammar. I'm also going to remove electric boogie, take African out of the jazz dance group, and fix all the disambiguation links you added. Then I'll either make pas de duex it's own row again or put lyrical hip-hop back beside hip-hop. Or maybe do both. Or maybe not even touch them. I haven't decided yet since you have a problem my editing except for the last option. I don't know what you would settle with. Any other changes I make won't be without good reason. I think I've demonstrated that by my long-winded response to your comments. If it kills you to see me make these edits again then go ahead and revert them. At that point, I'll just go to WP:RFC and solicit the opinions of people who don't care about either of us or SYTYCD because I'm not about to argue back-and-forth on this talk page with you considering that you don't WP:OWN the page, you have no sources, and more importantly, you have no WP:CONSENSUS about a rule you made up which you yourself reneged on. My ip > 132.3.17.68  "