Jump to content

Talk:Andrew W.K.

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.159.247.72 (talk) at 03:03, 11 March 2022 (→Somone keeps deleting my pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Genre

Who considers Andrew W. K. nu metal? Doesn't sound right to me. Tuf-Kat 01:35, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Give me a minute and i'll track this down. Meelar 01:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure I had a good reason for putting that in at the time, I just don't know what it was. Feel free to change it. Sheepishly yours, Meelar 01:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what to change it to, which is perhaps a sign that he isn't "generally considered" anything (i.e. there isn't any agreement). Allmusic calls him alternative metal, but that doesn't seem appropriate to me either. Tuf-Kat 02:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Kerrang! TV plays (one of) his videos quite a lot, and they're a nu-metal station. Then again, they play Eminem and Avril Lavigne... --Kiand 09:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AWK definitely should be considered pop-metal. -Wolfinator-x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.126.254 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea what genre he is, (I looked up this page to find out) but it should say something about it in the first sentence. it could be "metal" or "heavy metal" or whatever the most broad available term is. 01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesticator (talk • contribs)

Somone keeps deleting my pages

Someone keeps deleting my pages about the albums. They are very informational, and should be kept up.

No they're not, they're garbage.

excuse me?

Around 1994, andrew had a somewhat solo project titled Art of Ancient Boar. Not much is know about it.

Ignoring the capitalization/grammatical errors here [emphasis mine], there's no other reference to this on the 'net. Source? This sentence was addred by user Readytodie on June 27 2006, for reference. Shy 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're excused, tyrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.89.115 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you mong? 209.159.247.72 (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who Ruined the Article?

The article basicly has nothing now. Some moronic being went through and removed everything vital. The info is also way off. Andrew did now hit himself with a doorknob, it wasa piece of a cinder block. Alos, he did not hire session musicians for I Get Wet, the players on the album were his band from 2001 up until 2006 (they may have parted ways, no one is sure). Is it at all possible to change the article back to it's original state? Also, the title to To Live and Shave in L.A.'s album "God and Country Rally!" is not to be changed to "Ralley". The album is called" God and Country Rally!", no E.

--Readytodie 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article exists is itself an utter travesty. 209.159.247.72 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATHF

He recently had a cameo in the show Aqua Teen Hunger Force, playing himself. He had no speaking parts, just a part singing a song about partying, which has not been released on record but is available for download from his website. I just checked out his website and I can't find the song anywhere on there for download. Can anyone provide me a link? I'd like to download it. Thanks, -HumanZoom 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was released on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack and is called "Party Party Party" --Orion213434 08:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent "appearance" in Seattle

Note apparently sent by Andrew WK himself regarding a recent appearance in Seattle Bmathew 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That letter was infact sent by Andrew.........it's still being investigated, no one can actually figure out what happened that night. All people are saying so far is that Andrew was not himself (literally or metaphoricly, no one knows yet) that night. --Readytodie 18:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/blogs/reverb/2007/04/wheres_the_party.php

Birthplace Discrepency

The headline lists his birthplace as Los Angeles, the Bio says Stanford. Anyone able to clear that up?

According to Andrew's official biography on his official site, http://andrewwk.com/about.php, Andrew was born in Stanford. --Readytodie 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

As I'm sure none of these claims regarding Scientology can be documented, perhaps someone can remove them and have them replaced with some real biographical information? JerryLewisOverdrive 05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i'm going to have to remove that information. It's all made up, none of it can be proved.--Readytodie 18:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took out "In 1997 he was approached by the Church of Scientology for a roll as a rock star. The Church had long wanted to design and control a single person's career in order to promote the philosophy of Dianetics. After a breif meeting with Tom Cruise, the contract was signed and Andrew's life was in the hands of Scientology. The Church began by indoctrinating Andrew in the ways of Scientology and reshaping his personality to fit the ideals they wished express with his music. After months of isolation, Andrew re-emerged a new man. Once the transformation was complete, he began to learn the music he was to be recording for his first album that had been written by Tom Cruise." 66.245.8.125 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why does anyone care? Both Scientology and Andrew W.K. have idiots for fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Appearances

I saw someone put that fans may have doctored his recent apperance photos in order to make him have shorter hair. I was there at the concert and I saw and spoke to him. Maybe short hair is the wrong word (it wasnt like a buzzcut, but it was much shorter than before), but his hair was definitely shorter than before.

On July 31st he had short hair, on August 4th and 7th he had long hair. They were both the same person, so my conclusion is that he uses hair extensions. This is not an unusual occurrence in his field.

He might've just had it under his hat.

nope, i spoke to him personally july 28, i visited with him for quite some time, and he did not have the hair under his hat. --Readytodie 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Certainly, looking at that Boardrum video, his hair definitely appears short. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Andrews

I guess the evidence is in, He cut his hair in 2005 and wears hairpieces. This whole section could be cut down to one sentence. Wwwhatsup 10:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the entire Steev Mike and Multiple Andrew sections could be boiled down to a coule of sentences. Any objections? Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection; in fact, I agree. Nach0king (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am removing the entire Steev Mike & Multiple Andrews section to here. It's speculation, mostly uncited and unnecessary. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain

I am surprised the article only gives a passing reference to the Bahrain incident. It would seem to at least deserve its own paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.67.53 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate Moe Ron? 209.159.247.72 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Steev Mike"

Rumors claim that "Andrew W.K." is an actor, a "front man" hired to play the role and perform the A.W.K. music and that before there was an "Andrew W.K.," the press was holding interviews with a "Steev Mike," whose image and sound are the same as "Andrew W.K."
The first appearance of "Steev Mike" was inside the pages of the UK magazine "Dazed & Confused." An issue from early 2000 allegedly featured a full-page story on "Steev Mike," but it's nearly impossible to find this back issue, although it's been confirmed that the magazine and article do exist.
Steev Mike was later listed as "Executive Producer" on Andrew's album "I Get Wet". Steev's name was not listed, however, on Andrew's second album, "The Wolf". Three years later, Steev Mike was listed again on Andrew's DVD "Who Knows", and on Andrew's third album, "Close Calls With Brick Walls", as "Executive Producer".
Andrew himself has said little about the matter, urging his fans at times to simply "ignore lies". He has not claimed that he is Steev Mike, but he has not claimed that Steev Mike is another person. He did however confirm that "Steev Mike is a real person".
In 2005, Web sites directly linked with Andrew W.K. appeared to have been hacked, containing strange pictures and lines of code related to Steev Mike. These pages are now all off-line, but archived versions can be found at http://www.awk.dudeguy.com. Analysis of the code (and other information regarding Steev Mike) can be found at the fansite http://awilkeskrier.homestead.com/.
Many people have been said to be Steev Mike, most people accusing Andrew himself as being part of a conspiracy to make people think he's fake, but also James "Twig" Harper of the group Nautical Almanac, Chicago musician Little Howlin' Wolf, and even Andrew W.K.'s father, James E. Krier have also been suspects.
In March 2006, an alleged 1992 Bulb Records 7" 45 recorded under the name Steev Mike was discovered. The record was spotted on eBay, and the auction stated the records (the seller had 25) were found at a garage sale in Ann Arbor (Where Bulb Records was founded). The auction was for only one, but the buyer had the option to buy more. Several weeks later, a UK record shop, Volcanic Tongue, was selling copies of the record in their online store. The catalog did not have a lot of copies in stock, and soon after the page was found, the site was out of the records, and the page was later taken down. The tracks on the record were found to be the same as Bulb band Couch's first EP, except for the last track, which was Couch's track Old Man instead of the track (Is This) Time Travel Man, the track which was listed. This could be a possible mistake by bootleggers. On the back of the Steev Mike record, Andrew W.K.'s father, James E. Krier, is listed. When recently asked about this record, it has been supposedly noted as a "bootleg" or "phony" by Couch founding member James Marlon Magas. In one letter to a fan, he was quoted as saying "I guess people wanna sell records!". It is unknown at this point in time who is behind the record, but there are suspects.


Multiple Andrews?

Andrew participated as drummer 57 the Boredoms 77 Boadrum performance which occurred on July 7th, 2007 at the Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park in Brooklyn, New York. His look was drastically different, as he cut his hair short, had no facial hair, and wore very different clothing from his usual attire. [1] However, pictures from Andrew's official site conflict with the fan pictures, as the pictures from Andrew's official site show him with medium, shoulder-length hair. It is suspected that the fan pictures have been edited or doctored to remove some of Andrew's hair. [2]
In 2005, The Fader magazine featured a full-page article on Andrew W.K. which showed a radically different looking individual, with close cropped hair and different clothing, claiming to be Andrew W.K. This set off a subsequent wave of rumors that there were multiple individuals going under the "Andrew W.K." name. [3] The paranoia culminated during Andrew's "High-Way Party Cruiser Tour", during which many audience members were enraged when they claimed "someone else" was posing as Andrew W.K. and playing shows in his place. [4] It was never confirmed whether there were A.W.K. doppelgangers, or whether it was a case of "double mistaken identity". Andrew has used the words "self impersonation" in recent interviews, causing more speculation. Some fans have even believed that there was a "switch" in 2005, and a "new actor" began playing the role of Andrew W.K. A wave of online photo comparisons only caused further confusion. Andrew himself has not confirmed nor denied any of the related rumors.
On July 28, 2007, Andrew played a solo piano concert in Lansing, Michigan. At the concert, he had short hair covered with a baseball cap. Also, he wore orange sunglasses throughout the entire set.
On August 4, 2007, Andrew performed at Highline ballroom in New York City. He was in his normal attire, and had his full length hair, causing some to wonder whether Andrew does really have short hair, or if he's been wearing some kind of wig or hairpiece.
At All Tomorrow's Parties ATP vs the Fans in May 2007, Andrew W. K. appeared as the bass player for Current 93. The discovery provoked a petition to plea for a solo performance from Andrew, but sadly, no such event transpired. He was seen in typical apparel, with a full head of long, flowing hair.
Andrew, having produced the new Sightings album "Through The Panama", performed a keyboard set at their album release party at NYC's Cake Shop on November 9, 2007. [1][2]

His hair was long and appeared natural.

Despite all of the claims that Andrew has "flowing" and "natural" long hair, a person appearing as "Andrew" claimed in a 2007 interview with Nardwuar the Human Serviette that he has worn a wig. This interview can be found at http://playlist.citr.ca/podcasting/audio/20070406-153435-to-20070406-164433.mp3


References

  1. ^ http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/45580-sightings-drop-andrew-wk-produced-lp-tour
  2. ^ http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2007/11/sightings_andre.html

Steev Mike, "multiple Andrews cont."

At one time this article was mostly about the internet mystery surrounding the identity of Andrew W. K., now there is no mention of it at all. Being as this was a long & attested to phenomenon I believe there should be some mention of it in the article, at least what can be sourced elsewhere. Maybe a few sentences like suggested in the "multiple Andrews" section in this discussion, but maybe a link to (what is now a simple redirect) a "Steev Mike" article, with "Main article: Steev Mike" or something along those lines. I believe this was too prevalent of a "conspiracy theory" to just be omitted from wikipedia entirely. Nagelfar (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just a bunch of rumor and speculation and is thus not encyclopedic. What is evident is that AWK himself is quite happy to ferment such speculation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do agree with you, Wwwhatsup (Andrew has been doing everything in his power to fuel the SM rumor), alot of the SM article was truth, stemming from my many hours of research on the subject. If that article wa to be re-instated, I suggest that the unconfirmed information be removed, and only the truth be left in. It seems everytime I tried to write the REAL SM story, someone else would go in and delete the truth that I had written. So maybe the article should not be put back. But then again, the SM part of A.W.K.'s history is vital, and I believe there should be atleast SOME mention of Steev Mike in this article. Just my 2 cents. --Readytodie (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wwwhatsup, just because you "think" something, that does not give you the right to make such sweeping changes to an article, at least not without discussion. In the future, please discuss it on the article's talk page and get some feedback on your proposed changes. They might actually be for the worse! If you really wish to see that section deleted, make a new section for the proposed change here on the talk page.

^^Did anybody ask for your opinion biscuit head?^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(above comment is unsigned) Naturally what edits I make are governed by what I think. In this case I stated my opinions and asked for responses here. There appeared to be consensus. Plus there was a clean-up tag added by another editor to the page. I discussed it with that editor & waited a month. I then did a rewrite of the whole article which was a sprawling mess written in overly-promotional tone. The multiple Andrew thing appeared to be spawned by his haircut and wig-wearing, which I duly noted near the top. As far as Steev Mike goes, there is no cited source that clearly states the truth about his identity, and I couldn't see it's relevance. So, possibly there was an early record under another name, so what? Rumor and speculation is unencyclopedic, particularly when extended to long rambling paragraphs. That's why I didn't bother to rewrite it. I copied it here so that another editor would have a ready source should the wish to.
Re-including it hardly adds value to the article but I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. I've done my best to improve the article, and I'm confident that ultimately the material as it stands will be excised. I suggest that, if you care about the issue, you replace the current the copy with a succinct summation of the controversy, with good citations. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Whoknows.jpeg

Image:Whoknows.jpeg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 07:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

An anonymous editor just added Andrew is also a very competant cricketer and has played in various celebraity fundraising cricket matches. (4/10 for spelling :)) Do we have a citation? I guess this would need a new section 'Other activities'? Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my A.W.K. knowledge goes, he has never been a cricket player. Although I could ask him, I feel that it is not needed, and i'm pretty sure he's not a cricket player --Readytodie (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV and Film Appearances

Some mention should be made of his appearance in Melissa Cross's DVD - Zen and the Art of Screaming.User:24.148.118.195 10:22, February 16, 2008

Find a citation and put it in. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, someone should check to see if I formatted it right though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.195 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Well done. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about his hosting of the show 'Destroy Build Destroy' on Cartoon Network back in 2009? Neither page has any mention of it. 71.171.1.32 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hair

A bunch of pix in today's Brooklyn Vegan might indicate that Andrew is growing his hair out. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Steev Mike Outed"

Recently, "Steev Mike" has been outed as Andrew himself by Andrew's brother, professional golfer Patrick Wilkes-Krier, who writes:

Hello,

this is Andrews brother, Patrick Wilkes-Krier (as known me from professional golf) and I have read over some posts people had posted and that is all a load of junk! Do not believe it! However I have some valuable information..the truth! Because me and Andrew talked over this and I promised to never tell this, but I am favoring you, the fans!

The plan was for Andrew to cut in a new style, yes, he has indeed got a haircut! But the pictures you see on the homepage were taken back in February some time. So that was a working way to grab attention which was successful. Then to get people (hackers) to post lies about how this whole messy situation started (which wa spart of the plan and were nothing but lies to grab attention and create confusion to promote the album) and then for Andrews made up character Kristine Williams to come clean. However, that was another part of the lies.

So the truth you wonder? Well the plan was for me, Patrick Wilkes-Krier, to be the guy behind it all. To be behind the lies, hackers and Steev Mike person. Now, Steev Mike you wonder is he 'real' or 'made up', simple answer is he is REAL. Steve Mike was a friend of mine, but Andrew did not get along with him and in the future things were tense between them as they picked arguements out and always disagreed with each other. But it came to the point were Steve moved to Orlando. And to mine and Steve's shock, Andrew said "thank you, I have just created a character which can bring excitement, unhappyness and confusion as a part of a role to help boost my ego". Andrew walked off with a smile that day (August 9th 2000). And until now, thats what Andrew has been hiding. It is not something bad, and as he said he wanted to boost his ego with this Steev Mike thing, I guess its working. But Andrew promised to never tell the truth about Steev Mike to anyone else because he was afraid someone would steal his idea and get recognition for a publicity stunt never done before.

Andrew will hate me for this, but we've had our ups and downs, and at this time we are on the down side. However, he can hate me but it is for everyones own good because Andrew doesnt realise it hurts you people, but I think he now would realise it and once he released his new album (Child Of Infinitive Fortune) he would come clean. And about Steev Mike, the real spelling is STEVE, he thought it looked better and was different he told me.

Thank you for your time, Patrick Wilkes-Krier

Yeah, people usually introduce themselves as "as known me from professional golf". Obviously nonsense written by a fan trying to stir up conversation about this issue. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Steev Mike" should be mentioned

I almost nominated the Steev Mike redirect page for deletion because there is no mention of that name anywhere in the Andrew W.K. article. If the "name" has appeared in reliable sources and linked to the subject (especially if it is indeed the same person), a cursory mention is all that's needed here. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed it because it was all referenced to open blogs and free webhost sites. You can use those sites to say absolutely anything, so I didn't really think the section belonged in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section should NOT be removed as it included "official" Andrew WK sites. It was probably all part of a publicity stunt or a misunderstanding, but it should at least be mentioned. Admittedly, what is there needs to be improved, too. Rather than delete, IMPROVE! (It's the Wikipedia way!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderPeel2001 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 July 2009
I removed the part about the hair length, and the conjecture about why Steev Mike is mentioned in various liner notes. Absolutely, one should improve sections that merely need to be expanded or sourced. But when a section just makes conclusions for which there is no reason to believe that sources exist, they should be deleted. WP:Biographies of Living Persons is the Wikipedia way. So is WP:No Original Research. -Verdatum (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew W.K. stage name or name change?

The way the article begins "Andrew W.K. (born Andrew Fetterly Wilkes-Krier)" make it sound like he legally changed his name to "Andrew W.K.," but to my knowledge Andrew W.K." is just a stage name if so it should read "Andrew Fetterly Wilkes-Krier, better known by the stage name Andrew W.K.," I'm not positive on it being a stage name, so I'd like some confirmation before I change the article.--Marcus Brute (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim?

I just saw him say on Fox News that he got married last year, and converted to his wife's faith of Islam. Sadistik (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Abuse

Someone changed his real name to Andrew Wigger Kibblets. Obvious page abuse. Keep an eye on the changes. --Afuzzyllama (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility

On Youtube, AndrewWK has posted video of himself standing in for a Tulsa weatherman, and claimed that he was "charged with inappropriate broadcast content by the local telecommunication authorities." However, there are no "local telecommunication authorities." There is no such charge as "inappropriate broadcast content." 70.185.224.94 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dec. 2009 controversy

I made a change to the intro which was reverted by Wwwhatsup, specifically that AWK did an interview on Dec. 15, 2009, revealing rather interesting information about himself. I provided a citation. You wanna talk about that, or just edit out information you don't like? Valkyryn (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details about this, but just looking at what was reverted, in the least, it should not be written in the passive tense. Don't say "It was revealed", say (for example) "Andrew Fetterly Wilkes-Krier stated that...". This avoids sounding overly authoritative.
Not having read the interview or knowing further details, I could posit that this might just be speaking figuratively, or just being goofy, or talking about a performing persona on par with "eminem" over "Marshall Mathers"...as opposed to a more genuinely fictional character like Tony Clifton. -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't watched him talk about this, or even bothered to read the wiki article itself, I don't see what you're adding to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderPeel2001 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 January 2010
WwwhatsupThunderpeel, the intent of my comment was to weigh in on writing style, and to demonstrate that comments from sources like interviews must not be interpreted, merely reported. -Verdatum (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I thought you were weighing in on interpretation. Have you read the article yet? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AWK has now posted a categorical denial Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't actually deny anything. He only says he's been accused of being fake, but goes on to say that while he has mentors and advisors, he's not a puppet and believes in what he does. It doesn't contradict anything he said on stage in London in December 2009. He certainly makes no attempt to say he isn't the second person to play Andrew WK. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity Stunt/Steev Mike/Alternative Identities

Even a cursory look on the web will show that the various "conspiracies" and other PR related nonsense are being driven by Andrew himself. Most of the conspiracy related articles, public "outings" and other conflicting stories are coming from the same source. The section that quotes Andrew's public appearance in London misquotes his words and takes them out of context.

The section is implying he is "not" Andrew WK when in fact he is saying that he has changed into a "different" person. If one watches all three clips he explains everything in full and talks about all of these details.

I think that the "Steev Mike" and "front man admission" sections should be condensed into a section title Publicity Stunt or otherwise noted as various techniques of Anrew WK's PR related persona manipulation. Creatcher (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good! Someone else with a bit of perspective. I suggest "Identity Confusion/Hype", and it has to include 1) Steev Mikealter ego, 2) early wig-wearing, and 3) frontman conspiracy theories all. Now who's going to write it? I already did a major upgrade of the article a year or so back, and have been contanbtly partisan on this, someone else should step up. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creatcher, A cursory look does not reveal anything of the sort (although I wish it did). I don't buy into any of the so-called conspiracy theories. I have looked at them intensively and found them to be confusing, at best. I'd love to know where you think you found evidence that they came from Andrew himself. That sounds like another baseless conspiracy theory to me. As for the words: I transcribed them myself, and they are not misquoted. The section I in the article is complete, with little or no editing. It is not taken out of context, either, as I watched all three videos (and enjoyed them) and he does not "explain everything in full", but rather goes on to talk about taking control of our lives and begins interacting with the audience. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creatcher, while I understand how you can reach that conclusion, it's still a conclusion reached by synthesis of the available evidence. This is Original Research, and an arguable conclusion at that. For this reason, they can't be included in a Wikipedia article. We can't call his actions a publicity stunt, we can't state that he was the origin or sole source of these theories.
I have no problem with merging the "Steev Mike" and "front man admission" sections into one. They seem to address the same issue. -Verdatum (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they address the same issues at all. One is an unfounded mishmash of random links, articles and theories, the other is an outright statement from the man himself (with zero mention of "Steev Mike", I might add). If anything the two should be separated further apart, as they have nothing to do with each other (as far as we know) Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that the steev mike section can be improved. But the information it puts forward appears to be the same ideas to which Andrew responds in his January 3rd Post. But my opinion on the matter isn't a strong one. If anyone feels strongly about reorganizing it, I'd say Be Bold, and if anyone doesn't like it, we can revert and/or discuss in greater specifics. -Verdatum (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the note that the person who named themselves "Steev Mike" posted, it seems like it might all be connected, afterall. For those who haven't read it, here it is: http://www.andrewwk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=65893&sid=b437889bc2662dedb5979df1675e29a8
Unfortunately all this confusion has brought the nutcases out of the woodwork (have you seen the "Lady GaGa"/Illuminati stuff? Oh dear). One thing is pretty clear: Andrew WK was most likely hired to play a character. It's no big deal, it happens all the time in the music industry. Hell, even The Beatles has their public image tailored by their record company. These days people who can sing, dance, and have the right attitude are often turned into "stars". It's not a conspiracy, it's just normal music business practice. It's also normal practice for artists to perform music written by other people. From Elvis, Motown, right up to the present day, people don't mind if they know what they're getting. The problem arises when people think they're being lied to (remember what happened to The Monkees? Milli Vanilli?) The problem for Andrew WK is that he was sold as "real".
I can easily imagine one of the original members of the team getting "squeezed" out at some point and getting pretty bitter about it. I can also see things from Andrew WK's point of view: He believes in "Andrew WK" as much as anyone can, he IS "Andrew WK" as much as anyone can be... so what's the problem? He's not faking it, per se, and he's not a puppet...
But the problem is that he was sold as a real musician, like Trent Reznor, but infact he was more like Britney Spears... and his fans (understandably) don't like it.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like my instincts were correct. Andrew wrote about "Steev Mike" (although not by name) in the British newspaper The Guardian in Sept 2009 (which is highly respected, I might add). Here's the link, and the quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/sep/16/andrew-wk-55-cadillac
The article was called, "I am finally a free man" Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This makes it funny you should mention Trent; it sounds like Andrew has quite a bit in common with the guy. Take a look at Broken (EP)#Recording. Yeah, I know, I'm wading into general discussion, sue me. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew WK not only admits to being "manufactured" in a way that Trent Reznor never has, he seems to defend it. This is nothing like Reznor's feud with TVT over creative control on Broken. For one thing, nobody ever "tried out" for the "part" of Trent Reznor. 24.247.123.121 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New EP coming out.

The "Party All Goddamn Night" EP This should added.

http://www.andrewwkmusic.com/blog/2011/02/20/the-party-all-goddamn-night-ep 86.46.48.88 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask Andrew WK Anything"

This section bascially says that the man made a public appearance and said one or two things. I don't see the value of this information, let along giving it its own section. PurpleChez (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone far enough

Ok, the "Steev Mike" section is FULL of citation needed tags, including one I had to add because one of the citations leads to a nonexistant webpage, and I'm willing to bet that there are others like that. If any of this even belongs here, it just barely makes the cut, and the entire thign needs to be cleaned up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.177.57 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew W.K. to be going to a brony convention.

It isn't BronyCon, but I believe this should have a mention. http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/1225/25485/ANDREW-W.K.-Confirms-Speaking-Engagement-At-My-Little-Pony-Convention Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naaaah 99.240.47.3 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do speaking engagements all the time. Mentioning them doesn't really add to this article. If the convention is notable and has a WP article, it would be reasonable to Mention Andrew (and any other special guests) in that article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew W.K.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew W.K.. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew W.K.. 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: 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) 12:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWKGOJ Removed for not being a notable

Ringerfan23 (talk) 

- please don't touch this artists page or related pages. Removing the AWKGOJ EP demonstrates how little you know about this artist. It's arguable that the AWKGOJ EP is what caused Andrew W.K. to get signed to Island Records in the first place. Basically, if it weren't for this EP, this entire wikipedia page likely wouldn't exist in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickalan (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of the Drumming Marathon World Record

Per the current text:

>Andrew set a world record for Longest Drum Session in a Retail Store at the MTV O Music Awards on Thursday, June 20, 2013 after drumming non-stop for 24 hours.[70]

The citation is dead, but there are many other sources referencing MTV's press release.

But there's nothing on Guiness World Record's website:

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=drum%20retail%20store&page=1&type=all&max=20&partial=_Results&#search-results

While there is this:

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2015/9/spotlight-longest-drumming-marathon-395750

Which is, er, significantly longer.

This explains the strange 'in a Retail Store' qualifying statement in the record's supposed title. But there's more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbKaTM9O0T4

See that? 6 minutes in, on the certificate they hand to him:

>Longest Drum Session in a Retail Store In New York City

What's up with the hastily scribbled text? I seem to remember that, partway through the record attempt, they realised it wouldn't be a record.

https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/arts/longest_drumming_marathon_Steve_Gaul_sets_world_record_112443.html

This was the year prior, and set in a retail store. Obviously, a record limited to stores inside one city is not a world record.

Let the truth be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.197.76 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory

2021 - I added in a Conspiracy Theory section and moved down the Steev Mike explanation from the Close Calls section that it was previously noted in. Added in details of the Journal that should probably be noted now as a reference. I tried to keep everything succinct, but i'm sure there's lots more that could be explained and added here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_W.K.&oldid=1076434035"