Talk:Tammy Lynn Sytch

message: I undid Nikki's edit in regards to the modeling and promotional work. I don't understand why that was deleted, as the proof and source was provided in the links section; which provides a link to the photo of Tammy doing the promotional work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboGraphx16 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional/Modeling Work 

message: I understand Tammy was friends with Bret Hart and his family (there are some good moments of her in the film "Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows" where she's playing with Bret's kids and crying with Bret's wife over Bret's leaving the WWF).  Can anyone add any details to this and put it in the article ?
There were rumors she and Bret had a romantic friendship.  This is only a rumor that Bret has denied.  Either way, all is irrelevant to her bio if she was friends with Bret Hart and his family. ABB 7/11/06
Tammy has denied it also, but admitted that she did have a relationship with Shawn Micheals that lasted several months while she and Candido were having problems. It's mentioned in more detail in a RF Video interview featuring her, which from what I can tell, is where a lot of info in this article came from. (PHOENIXZERO 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sunny and Bret were never romantically involved. According to her, Bret was an introvert and enjoyed female company rather than the overbearing masculinity of the male dressing room. 81.170.79.97 (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tammy and Bret Hart 

message: I have reverted or edited to remove several instances of anonymous editors inserting "trivia" regarding Tammy's past or present weight. Until it can be demonstrated that such speculation is germaine to an encyclopedic article, I will continue to do so. - Chadbryant 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation Regarding Tammy's Past/Present Weight

message: I have taken the liberty of doing the following to what was previously a 32k article:
*Removed the weight from the infobox - females in wrestling typically do not have an announced weight (billed or otherwise), and including an unverifiable statistic in the article is pointless, especially when it has been the target of vandalism.
*Replacing the picture in the infobox (Image:TammySytch.jpg) with a properly-sourced photo that is more representative of Tammy in her "prime". The previous image is of dubious origin and does not adequately represent the subject of the article.
*Removing most of the other photos from the article. At most, this article should have two, maybe three photos of Tammy. The photos included previously were also of dubious copyright status, and seem to have only been uploaded and included in the article to poke fun at Tammy's recent weight gain, which is definitely not encyclopedic and probably violates WP:BIO.
I have not done so yet, but further editing to reduce the unnotable & trivial details of her indy wrestling career could also be justified. - Chadbryant 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The artcle has been cleaned up to adhere to Wikipedia standards. As a biography on a living person, it is held to an even higher standard (see WP:LIVING). - Chadbryant 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could use another clean up, it's filled with redundant info. Not to mention it suffers from "Wall O'Text" syndrome in spots. (PHOENIXZERO 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed a huge part about her so-called "return" to WWE, which never happened and is totally unsourced. Also removed a lot of play-by-play from indy shows such as NWA ShockWave and NWS.192.204.106.2 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Cleanup

message: The article claims "She is once again looking great. Her look today is compareable to her look in 1997".
Granted, she does look kind of hot again, but first I wouldn't go as far as to say that her current look is comparable to her 1997 look, and second I'm not sure that this kind of comment should be on a Wikipedia article anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.171.156 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MILF Tammy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tammy Lynn Sytch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130706232003/http://nepwhof.weebly.com:80/hall-of-famers.html to http://nepwhof.weebly.com/hall-of-famers.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tammy Lynn Sytch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.nwashockwave.com/v3/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=54
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524052837/http://www.wwe.com/videos/hall-of-fame-sunny-makes-a-surprise-return-at-the-15th-anniversary-of-raw-17043924 to http://www.wwe.com/videos/hall-of-fame-sunny-makes-a-surprise-return-at-the-15th-anniversary-of-raw-17043924
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In regards to the edit made to remove "excessive detail," I have to disagree. If Sytch's legal issues seem excessive, it's simply because she has some many and, sadly, they happen frequently. Picking in choosing which charges to include and which to ignore doesn't seem helpful.
First, I'm not sure why the whole paragraph concerning her 2015 charges would be arbitrarily deleted. In the 2018 paragraph, the fugitive from justice charge was also deleted. That was one of the actual charges though. Also, how are the locations of two of her 2018 offenses "excessive?" Removing the information about being extradited back to PA isn't helpful either. With the edit made, it says she was incarcerated in NJ but released from PA. The part with the judge giving her a zero-tolerance release is also important as that's what her 2019 arrest and current incarceration PA is tied to. In the 2019 paragraph, how are the charges she received excessive and why would we totally eliminate one of the agencies charging her? We have wrestling articles that seem to detail every match of a wrestler's career but details of this person's real life legal issues don't deserve all of the details that actually apply to them? I don't entirely disagree with every edit made by my fellow editor here. The trimming of much of this information though is what seems excessive to me as it seems to raise more question for the reader than informs them. NJZombie (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The level of detail is absurd. Beyond WP:UNDUE. She's primarily known for her time in the WWF and our legal history section dwarfs that. We even give detailed accounts of every time she has been pulled over by police! The section is more detailed than the section on O. J. Simpson detailing the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman! I helped write the 2012-2013 and 2016-2017 paragraphs and included salient details on the arrests, convictions and releases. We shouldn't give any more detail than that. She's due in court soon, I'll look into this again after that.LM2000 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE relates to neutrality, not notability versus other article subjects. It has zero to do with whether a subject is notable enough to deserve a certain level of information presented or detail given to it. It's saying debatable viewpoints within an article should have equal weight applied to them and that we shouldn't overly detail one viewpoint and not give the other viewpoint equal detail, as it tips the scales to make one viewpoint seem right over the other. While it does say, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text..." that is in regards to trying to slant the article to portray her one way over another. The sourced information presented is factual and neutral. It's not attempting to present that one side is more biased than another via adding more detail to it than another. The section is reporting the numerous charges and jail time she has accrued. If there's more to report from her legal issues than there is for her WWE career, it's because there's considerably more that's happened in that area over the other. It doesn't give details of every time she's been pulled over, as you claim. It gives details to a string of times she's been pulled over for the same types of offenses, which all interconnect to the situation she's in right now. There are not multiple viewpoints to debate and present a bias to one side with via excessive detail, which is what WP:UNDUE is actually addressing. NJZombie (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DUE or WP:WEIGHT is a broad policy concerning how much space certain subjects should take up in an article. You can see both terms used on Talk:Donald Trump, where editors are debating how much weight should be devoted to developments in the Special Council investigation. WP:NOTNEWS is another factor here. It's true that basically everything here has been covered in some reliable source (although some sources used are considered unreliable per WP:PW/RS) but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the encyclopedia. We should not have a play-by-play readout of what police officers observed after pulling her over. Was she arrested? Was she charged? Was she convicted and did she serve time? We need to summarize and answer only the central questions. I don't mind starting an RfC at some point to see what other editors think if we cannot come to an agreement.LM2000 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I've trimmed again and kept some of the details that you find important. If you still find it unsatisfactory then that'll be the diff I use for the RfC.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I do still thoroughly disagree with the excessive deletions AND your interpretation of WP:UNDUE regardless of whatever other talk pages are citing it that way and welcome the RfC should you decide to so. I couldn't disagree more about eliminating the additional charges as they are all pertinent to the level of trouble she's been in. The section is now OVERsimplified in my opinion. To avoid what can be seen as a potential edit war though, I've left the article as it, save for some minor adjustments to things like adding specific months over the use of a season, for example. NJZombie (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive detail?

message: To the IP editor removing it repeately, and to anyone else. Is there a reason you feel we should not include mention of her fiancé in article? WikiVirusC(talk) 03:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I just added this bit of info the other day. However, it is widely being reported by a variety of sources and it's not unusual for us to include mentions of engagements. No valid reason for removal is being given.LM2000 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiance