Talk:Ron Sexsmith

Untitled

"Sexsmith"? "Affective voice"? Sounds like an obvious ridiculous hoax-article.

Hm. It appears that this man is very much so real. RonSexsmith.com, as well as his MySpace profile. If this is a hoax, then it's a very elaborate one. I don't know anything about this man or his music (I came across this page at random), but I thought that I'd share. 4.224.132.237 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't this guy appear on an episode of Cheppelle's Show? I think the was the guitar player on that sketch about white people and dancing... ~ 65.96.103.25 09:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that was John Mayer84.142.227.39 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This hoax claim should be removed from the wiki, since Ron Sexsmith is a well known artist, one person's ignorance of his music does not a hoax make.

It's insane that this even came up. I saw him at the Juno's way back, and in Ireland. He's fantastic, one of my favourite musicians.

Hoax tag pulled

I've pulled the hoax tag, as this person is indeed a prominent musician. I get 1.3 MILLION Google hits for "Ron Sexsmith". So, I'd say it's a nobrainer. --Pleather 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "metronews" :
  • {{cite web| url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508458967.html | title=A master of restraint| work=Fairfax Digital| accessdate=2008-05-22}}
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.psnw.com/~randyk/072695.htm | title=Metronews Music Reviews| work=Randy Krbechek| accessdate=2008-05-22}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

he cowrote 'brandy alexander' with feist

http://trianglemusic.blogspot.com/2008/06/ron-sexsmith-brandy-alexander-mp3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.43.217 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ron Sexsmith. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ronsexsmith/articles/story/5927073/ron_sexsmiths_beautiful_view

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ron Sexsmith. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Sexsmith+finds+redemption+Long+Player+Late+Bloomer/4361446/story.html?id=4361446
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104170642/http://www.psnw.com/~randyk/072695.htm to http://www.psnw.com/~randyk/072695.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Colleen Hixenbaugh

Colleen Hixenbaugh in 2010

@Revirvlkodlaku: In this edit, Revirvlkodlaku removed this picture of Colleen Hixenbaugh, with the comment "I don't think her picture should be included, unless Sexsmith is also in it." I disagree. (Naturally enough, since I added the image.) Since we can only use free licensed images, we don't have a limitless number of images we can add, in fact this is the only free one of her I could find. I do agree that one of them together would be even better, since this is the article about him, and the only reason we are discussing her at all is because of her relationship to him - but this one of her without him would be perfectly fine. We've got plenty of other biographies that have pictures of that are important to the subject, without including the subject. For example, Thomas Jefferson has pictures of six buildings, four maps, and for pictures of people, Albert Gallatin, Lewis and Clark, Black Hoof, Aaron Burr, Abigail Adams, ... - all without portraying Jefferson himself. Are going to delete them because they aren't pictures of Black Hoof and Jefferson, or Burr and Jefferson, or Lewis and Clark and Jefferson? This principle, that we shouldn't have a picture at all if we could, in theory, have a better one, even if we don't have it now, is called perfect is the enemy of good, and it is not how we do things in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia we are all about many small improvements, not waiting for the ideal image which we might never get. Sure, one of them together would be better. But until we get that pic of them together, one of her alone is much better than none. --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban, thanks for bringing this up. I don't have a hard stance on this, but it just isn't clear to me how a picture of Hixenbaugh enhances an article about Sexsmith. I get that they're married, but I think it's sufficient to mention her or provide a link, if available. Sexsmith is known for his music, not his personal life, so I think images that appear on his page should be restricted to what concerns his work, not his private life. Again, this is not a hard stance, and I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise if there exists a strong precedent or a convincing argument that counters mine. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

She's his wife, and is also a notable musician. It's hard to argue she's not one of the most important people in his life. I think she's worth an image. Whether someone is known or not determines whether or not we have an article about them or not, but once we decide we will have an article about someone, we don't restrict ourselves to writing only the most known things, we write a biography. WP:NNC. Jefferson wasn't known for his relationship with Abigail Adams, but we have a picture of her in the article about him; Hixenbaugh is much more important to Sexsmith than that. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban,I don't find that convincing—you're basically reiterating your original point.

I acknowledged that I'm aware of their marital status.

She can't be that notable if she doesn't have her own page.

I'm not disputing that she's important to him, just that I don't see a reason to include her picture. If we had a picture of one of his siblings (assuming he has any), would we include it, since they would presumably be an important person in his life? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason to include her picture, like everything else we include, is that it improves the article. It is my opinion that having a picture of the subject's spouse and tour manager[1] who is also a musician in her own right, with news articles about her work without him[2], would improve the article. But I see you disagree, and you are right, we are repeating ourselves. In the end, what improves the article is an opinion, not something that can be proven. Let's get a Wikipedia:Third opinion.[3] --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I don't have a strong preference either. I'm not sure it really improves the article and the image itself isn't exactly the best so I'd lean against inclusion. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That counts, thanks. Will leave out. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)