Talk:Neil Cicierega

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PoV[edit]

"Cicierega created one of the most original genres of Flash animation..." This bit probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia, which doesn't want content that expresses an opinion. What would be the best way to express this in a more neutral way? AdamAtlas 02:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about "Some believe that Cicierega created one of the most original genres of Flash animation..." JoeyETS 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change is good, much more accurate as well as unbiased. JoeyETS 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Vote[edit]

Vote for Deletion again - If every 17 year old internet geek had an article on Wikipedia then there would be twice as many pages as there are now. Seriously - this guy in unknown to 99.9999% (approximately) of the world's population. Maybe his 'invention' deserves a stub, but I doubt he does. Arcturus 21:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Next time you would like to put something on AfD, please do so using the procedures found at WP:AFD. The problem with not following the outlined procedure is that you get a page like this that has had an AfD discussion on the talk page for about a year, with nobody concluding it because it doesn't use the proper templates and does not have a discussion of its own. Since the vast majority of votes on this page are keep I am going to be bold and "conclude" it, moving the AfD-related contents of the talk page to a separate archive, and adding a "survived pseudo-AfD" notice to the top of the page. --TexasDex 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly he's prolific enough to warrant his own site. Even as a mere "internet celebrity".203.131.167.26 13:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil is a teen-geek idol. He is very famous in that crowd, a veritable genius to some. He deserves an entry here. Middleearthhare 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Neil is extremely relevent and his disputes with Eric Bauman should be documented in this and Eric's article. 70.90.61.57 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a wiki user, but this randomly came up. How is this remotely notable enough to be in an encyclopedia? Does every high school garage band or nerd flash animator have a page? If so I'm sure wiki will be tripling in size shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.153.248 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for Animutations. He is NOT notable for his music, his band, his self-promotional PR projects or any of his other side projects. Brief internet success in 2001 does not give you a lifetime pass to pollute Wikipedia with references to your non-notable music projects. I've deleted the references to his band (which do NOT have citations aside from links to his own website) and the changes have been reverted three times now, within seconds, by a Cicierega associate claiming to be an objective Wikipedia editor. It's this kind of thing that opens Wikipedia up to accusations that it's no more than a public blog. Once again, Animutations are notable, Cicierega's music is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.238.97 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i bet this guy feels rather silly now GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Showdown: Should It Get It's Own Article?[edit]

I voted down the presence of Ultimate Showdown's article a while ago. Back then it wasn't significant, important, or anything. However, now it seems to have become a very, very big online hit and has a cult following big enough to result in incredible increase in traffic to Cicierega's weblog, forums, and ultimately way more album orders. I was thinking; now that it's become such a significant thing, should it have it's own article again? The "list of characters" is rather cumbersome and near-irrelevant to Cicierega himself here, and the huge stuff about it makes it feel like it's all Cicierega is when it isn't. Tenniru 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is worthy Matilda the rat (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Ultimate Showdown seems fine where it is, but the "list of fighters" section is more than a little superfluous.

Yeah, I don't think it's important enough to be on the main article either. In fact, it's a bit useless. Any thoughts on if it'd be good to remove it? Tenniru 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discography[edit]

is dimes an actual cd? cause i think it isn't. it's not on Neil's discography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreddy1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Dimes, it's real. Was sold via the old mp3.com cd printing/online sales combo method along with the other Trapezoid albums like Microwave This CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.186.106 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Demon[edit]

I'm thinking that there may be enough information on Lemon Demon for it to be given its own main article. (Lemon Demon currently redirects here.) Neil is putting together a live band; at past performances they've been a duo, Neil with his friend Alora Lanzillotta as the bassist, but they are now working with a guitarist and drummer, so Lemon Demon will soon be more than Neil. I think the fact that Lemon Demon is frequently played by Dr. Demento meets the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Any thoughts? —Adam Atlas 03:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Lemon Demon had its own page before, but it was decided that it would be deleted and merged with this one. I could be mistaken. Andrew zot 16:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it should have it's own article. Adamatlas said, they've been performing live shows and they're more of a band now. Plus their music has been made into many flash movies and is being distributed across the net. Leemorrison 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonic Demonade[edit]

Was this event worthy of putting the the article? It sounds like Neil intends for this to be an annual event... —XSG 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's supposed to be a quiet and personal thing, not an annual rock fest. Ashibaka tock 04:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neil has made a passing mention of it on his LiveJournal, although it was nothing more than a "see you next year". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.230.250 (talk • contribs) . 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, is there any reason to think that this is any more than just a glorified house party? --128.111.215.14 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other names?[edit]

Neil is also known by several names not mentioned at the beginning of this artical. He has also has music produced under the names "Trapezoid", "Deporitaz", and "MEGO vs. SPAGO". Should this be mentioned at the beginning with the others? 24.144.151.182 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trapezoid and Deporitaz are the same thing, and MEGO vs. SPAGO isn't nearly important enough to be mentioned at the beginning, seeing as we only know of two songs done under that name. --BranER 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture[edit]

Perhaps there should be a new, clearer picture of Neil at the upper portion of the article? I just thought this might be a good idea seeing as this is the article on Neil Cicierega the person, not just his band. Depending on how exactly things work, there are multiple pictures throughout the Internet of his face, recent ones. Captainstoat 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composition[edit]

Neil has done compositional work on a number of short films. Though I'm not sure a complete list is necessary, I think the volume of work produced merits at least a mention. http://www.lemondemon.com/lemondemon/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3679 - 206.75.99.84 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Should we make the video links head to WikiLemon articles for the videos instead of the videos themselves? WikiLemon has a lot more useful stuff pertaining to the video, such as transcripts, trivia, and stuff Neil said about the videos. --BranER — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 27 April 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

I just edited the opening paragraph to say not that he had a fan following but instead that his videos became popular and were watched millions of times. These facts are included in the Boston Globe article in the references section, so the need for citation is gone. Is this okay? Does anybody have thoughts? JoeyETS 18:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Whomever thought the claim about him being a multiple rapist would be funny needs to grow up. I've removed it; let's not require an edit protection on all of Wikipedia, eh? Berym 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC) dude, you are not serious. that ACTUALLY happened? has everyone stooped to the level of ebaum?!?oh wow.--Demoncat 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsetto[edit]

It says he is in the category of falsettos. Is he REALLY a falsetto??? Leemorrison 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has said that any female-sounding background vocals in his songs are him in falsetto, and he does sing in falsetto occasionally, but I don't know if that qualifies him for the "falsettos" group. 71.114.90.217 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lemondemon.gif[edit]

Image:Lemondemon.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I have done some cleansing in this article. Much of the informations in this article was about his life, the software he uses and a long list of pretty much everything he ever released on the Internet. He truly deserves a wikipedia article but it should stick to what makes him worthy of one: his known work, his status of the internet, etc. and not a long list of what he has done and how he did it. I understand it's easier to find information on an vivid Internet than for a extremely known composer such as Hans Zimmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillTheHedgehog (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I have done some more cleanup, in particular to provide a more neutral point of view. The cleanup tag is still on the article. I leave it to the Wikipedia community to determine if and when it should be removed. The article could use some basic biographical information, for example when and where was he born. Truthanado 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potter Puppet Pals[edit]

Given the extreme amount of views for The Mysterious Ticking Noise and its significant popularity above that of even The Ultimate Showdown, is it not worthy of its own article by now? --Mattgcn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.99.223 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so and support the creation of such an article, however I am unfamiliar with the relevancy rules of wikipedia so am unsure if PPP is in fact relevant enough to warrant its own article. The Light6 11:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's enough information to credit an article of its own. Plus, some wu seem to have a personal vendetta against pages off the internet (e.g. chocolate rain fiasco) 88.110.172.27 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it notable that in Wizard Swears they insult Neville's mother, who is insane at St. Mungo's? The scene seemed a little insensitive. Pizzadinosaur (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insensitive to an imaginary person. --76.27.38.164 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know she's imaginary. I'm just saying that this is the kind of trivial continuity error that people would get a kick out of reading. --Pizzadinosaur (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this movement! Though I'm a nobody so it probably doesn't matter what I say...I dunno though, it would be nice if there was a little more elaboration. Like, I've been told he does the voices for all of them, but then why is there credit for three other people in his videos? Do they just hold the puppets? But like I said, I'm just an average lurker for the most part.75.2.21.75 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the other creditted people are usually puppet holders. --67.204.199.151 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, the Potter Puppet Pals section is taking up a considerable amount of the article. So I agree with this. --88.111.37.25 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Potterpuppetpals.jpg[edit]

Image:Potterpuppetpals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore[edit]

In the section about Potter Puppet Pals, it mentions that Dumbledore often strips off his clothes in the videos and that foreshadows JKR's statement that Dumbledore was gay. Am I missing something? It seems like quite a leap to go from public nudity to homosexuality. 70.157.79.165 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's no good. Removed. tgies (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm taking Neil Cicierega's Infobox off[edit]

I just found out that Neil Cicierega is not an internet celebrity. Don't get me wrong, he does a ton off stuff on the internet, but he's also known as a musical artist who performs for people. That's the thing, he's famous for a lot of stuff, not just being an Internet celebrity. That's why I'm taking his infobox off, and yes, I edited the parts of his page and put an infoboxes on both the Potter Puppet Pals and Lemon Demon. But don't take it as though I was vandalizing it or something, it's true that the Potter Puppet Pals is a real internet video series, that's why it needs an infobox, and Lemon Demon is a real band that performs in real life, that's why it needs an infobox, but the main Neil Cicierega part of the page doesn't need an infobox, because he's the one who created both Potter Puppet Pals and Lemon Demon (and Animutation, forgot to mention that).

Bottom Line: the Neil Cicierega part doesn't need an infobox.

RedRose333 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. Whether or not he "does a ton of stuff off the [I]nternet" (which I am hard-pressed to agree with), he is still first and foremost an Internet celebrity. The venue of most of his work is the Internet. He found his "fame", such as it is, on the Internet. He releases 100% of his work exclusively on the Internet.
Everybody else seems to disagree with you on this, anyway, so I'd suggest you stop taking off that infobox. You're also violating the three-revert rule, repeatedly. tgies (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, forget everything I said. I promise I'll never take the Infobox off again.

RedRose333 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki lemon[edit]

Somethings wrong with the site, It showed up an error. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the server broke a while ago, it was suppose to go back a few days ago but I think the guy that's hosting it got lazy. The Light6 (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezoid the goon[edit]

This article still needs to mention Neil's notable connection to the Something Awful forums and the raid on Ebaumsworld two years ago. Ninja337 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, his participation in Internet forums and meaningless Internet rivalries is not notable. tgies (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Ebaumsworld.com article already, we just need to adapt the information to this article.Ninja337 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it.
"A web site, EbaumsWorldSucks.com, was set up by Newgrounds/Something Awful supporters Neil Cicierega, Shawn Vulliez, and Abi Rendon (a former eBaum's World employee) to document the ongoing eBaum's World controversy. The site hosted a page containing statements from content creators claiming that some of their works appear on eBaum's World without permission. Bauman has demanded that the site be taken down, a request that was ignored."Ninja337 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 200CDFreedom8 (UTC)

Neville[edit]

Why do you think Neville is a butternutsquash, He looks more like a potato. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Neil has said that he is not a potato but a butternut squash, people trying to change it is what caused me to add the citation which you failed to check. It can be found at this link: [1]. The Light6 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT, WAIT...[edit]

WHY THE HECK DOES LEMON DEMON REDIRECT TO HERE!? I mean, Potter Puppet Pals? I wanted the band! 76.173.92.70 (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There's a section on Lemon Demon?? Just look at that.

Lemon Demon redirects here because Lemon Demon is just a performance name for Neil. Potter Puppet Pals is by Neil but isn't exclusively Neil's and judging on it's popularity should be notable enough for it's own article (there have been talks to make a separate page but nothing happened), but there is no Potter Puppet Pals band, just Potter Puppet Pals which have animations, live-action videos and music (which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article either). The Light6 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potter Puppet Pals has its own article[edit]

I split the Potter Puppet Pals section off into its own article, which entailed rewriting almost all of it. It's now a lot more encyclopediac and even cites a few sources here and there.

After the exhaustion of writing all that and citing stuff etc. I couldn't really be bothered with the section on here, so it's kind of short. I think someone should extend it, maybe me in the future. Smurfy 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Potter Puppet Pals should have it's own article an administer called Seresin (Talk) does not and has reversed it. The Light6 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hppp[edit]

Shouldn't harry potter puppet pals be a seperate article like the ultime showdown?--Spittlespat (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's alreday been discussed. Most people think that, but...

but what?--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read the section directly above this one? I think it clearly shows what he means. The Light6 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, real quick, in the episode "Wizard Swears", i thought voldemort answered the phone "Dark Lord Voldemort speaking", not DR voldemort. they sound alike, but i think i'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.111.76 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

Should this page be semi-protected? It's getting vandalized a lot.

Err, any replies yet? YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potter Puppet Pals: Internet phenomena?[edit]

PPP should have its own spot in the list of Internet Phenomena. MILLIONS of people have viewed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxcvbnmalex (talk • contribs) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the lemon demon section go[edit]

The Lemon Demon paragraph is entirely unsourced and the subsection for "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" contains links to two sources, but those links do not actually contain any mention of Cicierega or his band, they're simply general links to an internet radio show.

There has been no independent, objective coverage of Lemon Demon in recognized media, there is no verifiable information about the festival Lemon Demon supposedly headlines, and Google searches yield no information about the band aside from self-promotional material created by Cicierega and his associates.

The claim that Cicierega has more than 1 million plays on Lastfm does nothing to establish notability -- the rapper DZK has had more than 10 million plays on Soundclick, but his Wikipedia page has been repeatedly deleted for not being notable. There are many similar examples -- the number of plays an artist has on Myspace, for example, is not considered a threshold for notability.

As mentioned earlier, Cicierega's Animutations are notable, but his music is largely unknown. Wikipedia is an information source, not a public relations tool, and the burden for notability is on the editors who post information. In this case, it's clear that Lemon Demon does not meet the site's guidelines for notability, and the section on the band should not be reinstated without reliable sources independent of Cicierega and his associates. Stormstrike (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT SHOULD STILL BE HERE Smurfy 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will re-add it, as I believe it to be a vital part of the page. Pacarama

Where are the necessary independent sources to show its real-world notability, then? Without these, the band has no notability. We shouldn't just add content based on some knee-jerk, "I like it" reaction. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lemon Demon has almost 1.25 million plays on Last.fm, as can be seen here, it yields about 2,500 results when "Lemon Demon" searched for on YouTube and, with 3243 members on the Lemon Demon forum I think it counts as notable. Pacarama (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are its reliable, independent sources, though? This is what defines notability, not arbitrary search results and statistics. Unless its real-world context can be verified in this way, there is no justification for it to be covered on Wikipedia; notability is not inherited, either; it being something that NC has done does not make it something that needs to be covered to such depth on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Independent and reliable sources are not demanded by policy for absolutely everything in an article. Contributing to overall notability is also not necessary. Notability has to do with the topic, not the content of an article on a notable topic. Sources can be self-published or otherwise defective, subject to WP:V etc, if they are what is available for what common sense suggests is something important enough for inclusion in an article on a notable topic. (e.g., any reasonable source is commonly used for birth and death dates, and the fact that a person was born or died does not contribute to notability) The article just should not be dominated by such sources and material. The most important policy concerning whether such things should be included is Neutrality - whether undue weight is being given them.John Z (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why give so much attention to this subject, though, if no reliable sources exist to show its real-world context? This is entirely what WP:UNDUE is about—if the band isn't covered in reliable sources, then we shouldn't be asserting otherwise by giving it such coverage. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be a great deal of attention to the subject to me, (I know nothing of the topic and have no idea why this article is on my watchlist though) and there are RS's on Lemon Demon (some gnews hits). "Reliable sources" needs to be read broadly in WP:UNDUE, including notable and acceptable sps's for example; the real question is how important the thing (Lemon Demon) is within the larger topic (Neil Cicierega). People can differ, people debate how much background info is relevant for BLP articles, but it is more a matter of consensus than strict policy exclusion.John Z (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "RS's" you linked include one legitimate source (Boston Globe) mentioning Lemon Demon once, in passing, while the majority of the others look like SEO sites posing as legitimate news sources. It's a tough sell to say if something is mentioned once in a newspaper, it has crossed the notability threshold for Wikipedia -- if that were the case, every person mentioned in a local police blotter could make the same argument. Ultimately, with between one and zero legitimate reliable sources, the question then becomes whether the section on Lemon Demon contains information that is notable to Wikipedia readers, or whether it serves as a public relations tool for Cicierega and Lemon Demon. Because there's evidence Cicierega and people associated with his projects have edited this page, and because there's a clear dearth of information on the band elsewhere, the section on Lemon Demon essentially serves as free advertising space for Cicierega. I am not aware of any rule or guideline on Wikipedia that says if a person has achieved notability in one area, he or she has a lifetime pass to pollute Wikipedia with their self-promotional materials. Once again, the burden of notability is on the editors who added that section, not with those who have deleted it. Stormstrike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have restored the details of Lemon Demon as they are clearly notable and there is no consensus to remove them. Note that Lemon Demon redirects here and so we must provide relevant content or spin it off as a separate article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemon Demon has several members and so it is arguably better to cover them separately rather than an as a subsection of the article for just one of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's one of his projects and therefore a relevant enough subject to Neil Cicierega; the article as a whole is underdeveloped, so to go splitting out its constituent parts seems far too rash right now, especially with the single secondary source the LD section has. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if this well end up on WP:LAME? :) --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-related: do we really need a View Monster article? Pacarama
Definitely not; that doesn't even make any assertion of notability. I've redirected it for now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lemon Demon section removed again. It is unsourced, unverified material and there has been nothing to support the claim that the band (not Cicierega himself) meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The two "sources" that subsequent editors keep restoring do not link to any mention of Lemon Demon; the links lead to a generic description of a radio program. Once again, the burden is on those who wish to add the section to prove the band is notable -- Wikipedia is not a public relations tool for Cicierega and his associates to advertise projects that have not had widespread recognition or impact, and the site's guidelines are very clear in asserting that advertising or promotional copy is not allowed. Stormstrike (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define "associates"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.214.75 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's worth a whole article, but it's certainly worth a short paragraph that, at the very least, explains who recorded the Ultimate Showdown. Not only that, but the section was deleted in a very half-assed manner, leaving Ultimate Showdown and the Deporitaz discography in the Potter Puppet Pals section. Chiphead (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability standards for music acts are high, and Cicierega is known for his Animutations, not his music. Again, notoriety for one thing does not guarantee you the right to deface wikipedia with public relations materials about your side projects for the rest of your natural life. Notice that the Wiki entry for Keanu Reeves says nothing about his little-known and not-particularly-celebrated rock music efforts. That's because he is an actor, and he is known publicly for his acting. Cicierega is known as the creator of a short-lived internet fad that didn't spread beyond its own small corner of the web. And most of those people who watched his flash movies have no idea what his name is. His band is not well known, and his proponents and associates have been devious in linking to supposed "sources" that contain no mention of Lemon Demon or even Cicierega. That kind of deception smacks of people who feel Wikipedia is their personal public relations platform, just another Facebook where they can celebrate themselves for their imagined fame. In reality, the burden is on you to prove Lemon Demon is notable. Until you can do that, please refrain from adding this unsourced, unverified information back into the article. Stormstrike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I made a much scaled down version of the Lemon Demon article. The Boston Globe article is a suitable source which describes the band at some length, as well as the Newgrounds link for Ultimate Showdown which shows it to have far more views than Animutations. The Potter Puppet Pals section could use a similar cleanup-- a play-by-play of each episode isn't really needed. I think the main articles for Ultimate Showdown and Animutations are unnecessary as well (especially since neither of them are as popular as PPP, which doesn't have its own article.) --Trapezzoid (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

Don't most biographical articles [regardless of their on/offline notability] have "personal life" sections? The least I know is that he has a sister, Emmy Cicierega. I'm sure that he has parents, too, or something like that. Paperxcrip (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Neil Cicierega used to post on the somethingawful.com forums under the username Trapezoid according to this thread (and here's a link to his posts in that thread). There's a good amount of information to be found there, including that he was homeschooled after he killed another kid [2] when he was eleven [3] (he claims the other kid was bullying him), and as recently as 2008 he lived in his parents' basement and their ten cats [4][5], who were part of what he calls a "cattery business."[6] I hope someone finds this useful. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.69.63 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Neil was "permabanned" from Something Awful a couple months ago: http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php?userid=53712 --JohnnyLurg (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography[edit]

The Album titles in the Discography section need to be in Italics instead of surrounded by quotation marks. The way it is, they look like individual songs or singles, but they are really full albums. I would do it myself if I knew how71.130.206.82 (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Cicierega. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Demento #1[edit]

The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny was #1 on the Dr. Demento show for the year 2006, as seen on this end-of-the-year playlist: http://dmdb.org/cgi-bin/plinfo.pl?drd06.1231.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdojace (talk • contribs) 08:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Spirit Phone get its own article?[edit]

I'm not sure if it would meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, but out of all of Cicierega's albums, it seems to have the most reputable reviews online (including a video review by Anthony Fantano), and was the first Cicierega physically distributed in many years. Cicierega also released a commentary for it, so there would likely be enough to write in a "music and lyrics" section. LilyT (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was also the first LP of original music he'd released in a nearly a decade (by any means). —BlackTerror (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be THAT GUY, but 8 years does not a decade make. casualdejekyll 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Yes per the reasons listed above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discography issue[edit]

To whomever was adding 1998 and 1999 to Neil's discography last month (and if they proceed to), these are added pieces of unofficial uploads of music under the name Deporitaz on Spotify by a random fan and are just the MIDI files that Neil published to his Youtube channel (and Patreon I believe). Peeper811 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

Hi! I was recently reading this article and I realized that the "Personal Life" section is very short, I totally respect that the guy might not have shared a lot of information about his life, but I feel like you could find something more about his family, for example, his brother (who you can find information on) is mentioned once, and not even by name. I personally don't know how to edit articles, but I feel like someone reading this does. Lemondemonfan56 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd entirely agree. I put in extra information recently, including the name of his daughter and a mention of his pet cats, but it was reverted. Evidently someone did not think the information was relevant enough or thought it was too personal, which I can understand. Mikuvoicefeminization (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_Cicierega&oldid=1213482269"