Talk:Gene Loves Jezebel

Untitled
Hi all. Just wanted to let you know that this entry is quite the work-in-progress. It is a bit lengthy and slightly cumbersome read at the moment, but please bear with me. I hope to achieve as an informative and non-biased article as possible in the coming weeks. --Ms.X (January 2006)

Websites
Hello. I like and agree with many of the changes that you have made on the GLJ page. The one error is calling genelovesjezebel.co.uk an official site. Michael Aston was the victorious party in a civil suit instituted by Jay Aston over trademark rights to the name "Gene Loves Jezebel" and Michael Aston was also the winner of an ICANN arbitration with Jay Aston over the rights to the domain name "genelovesjezebel.com". Accordingly, it has been conclusively and finally established in two different forums that Michael Aston is the sole and exclusive owner of the trademark and domain name "Gene Loves Jezebel". The .co.uk site is at best a fan site, not the official one. Ghost 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. As the article seemed to borrow from a BBC Wales article it was only my "duty" to correct the chart positions. Also, the NPOV stuff from the "KROQ, Top 106.7 Countdown of 198X" made little encyclopedic sense. But this official/unofficial websites stuff... &mdash; both claim to be official for the various segments of the band - it's painful (pitiful) - I guess "domain names" and ™ is more complicated. John Peter Aston registered the genelovesjezebel.co.uk during 2000, whereas Michael Aston (Aston Management Group) registered genelovesjezebel.com and genelovesjezebel.net during 1998; genelovesjezebel.org during 2000 and "Round Flat Records" gobbled up genelovesjezebel.info last May; does this mean another court battle? → friedfish 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The history leaves out a lot of important facts, such as Jay Aston, James Stevenson, Peter Rizzo and Chris Bell still perform as GLJ also. This is Michaels version of events and IMHO quite far removed from the truth. Andy

In that case, rather than just vandalising the page with unsourced allegations of its falsehood, you might like to properly amend it with a new section in an encyclopaedic tone giving a summary of the controversy, citing your sources. -- Archfalhwyl 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I have made some honest and reasonable changes. Lets see how long before they get pulled down. Andy

See - its been changed back to the lies again within a few hours. Andy

REPOSTING THIS FROM BEFORE: Michael Aston was the victorious party in a civil suit instituted by Jay Aston over trademark rights to the name "Gene Loves Jezebel" and Michael Aston was also the winner of an ICANN arbitration with Jay Aston over the rights to the domain name "genelovesjezebel.com". Accordingly, it has been conclusively and finally established in two different forums that Michael Aston is the sole and exclusive owner of the trademark and domain name "Gene Loves Jezebel". The .co.uk site is at best a fan site, not the official one.Ghost —Preceding comment was added at 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fan site, it is run by Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel. And even if it is a fan site, what's wrong with having the link in there? GhostAston, you have hijacked the GLJ article to make it seem as though Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel does not even exist. Frankly, those of us who are fans of Jay Aston are sick and tired of this biased article. This article is one of those examples of "Wiki reality" that critics hate Wikipedia for. O.k., so Michael won a court case. That does not mean that Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel does not EXIST. It does, and the majority of GLJ fans that I have found both personally and on the Internet side with Jay. But you continue to wipe out all references to Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel, which is B.S. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll give you an example. Others have tried to include something along the lines of the following simple entry, which is a FACT: "Jay Aston and other original band members tour as Gene Loves Jezebel." This is a FACT. Michael may not like the fact that they do, but they still do it. Whenever an entry like this is made, "GhostAston" reverts it and calls it vandalism. This, along with the pro-Michael bias to the article, is what fuels the belief of many that "GhostAston" is, in fact, Michael Aston himself. And we all know how Wikipedia frowns on the involved parties writing and editing Wikipedia articles about themselves... Bottom line...when will this article begin to reflect reality? (98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I have it on good authority from someone close to the REAL Gene Loves Jezebel that "GhostAston" is not Michael Aston himself. But he is, in fact, according to my source, an associate, or "superfan" of some sort, personally acquainted with Michael Aston (and perhaps, I wonder, a paid employee of?), who is known for less than friendly treatment (harrassment?) of Jay Aston's fans. WIKIPEDIA EDITORS TAKE NOTE: I believe this, in addition to other actions undertaken by GhostAston, calls into question his neutrality and bias. I would be VERY suspicious of his Wikipedia entries as pertains to the Gene Loves Jezebel article, especially his repeated attempts to censor information regarding Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel. Regardless, this situation needs some resolution and soon. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I am not a paid employee of Michael Aston in any way. That claim is ridiculous and without merit. Plus, I have never harrassed anyone but in fact have been the subject of much harrassment from Jay's fans over the years. One quick look at some of the messageboards will be proof of that. The article is not biased, it's the truth. A copy of the trademark can be found on GLJ's official site and I'm sure any court documents needed to prove the case could also be produced. James Stevenson, Pete Rizzo, and whatever drummer they are currently using are NOT original members. If Jay were touring with Steven Marshall and Ian Hudson then yes, that claim could be made as they were original members of the band although the only true original members are Michael and Jay themselves. Ghost

Now onto "Jay's GLJ" as you call it. Michael trademarked the band name in the U.S. Worldwide there is still a difference between the legal systems in the old British Commonwealth countries and the countries whose law is based on the Napoleanic Code. The Common Law countries include U.K., Canada, United States, Hong Kong, India, and parts of Africa, essentially the British Empire. In the Common Law Countries, trademark ownership is based on use. The first to use a Trademark owns it. Michael and GLJ toured the U.K. in 1999 and the resulting live album Live In Nottingham was released. That was years before Jay filed for the "U.K. Trademark". Also, Michael and GLJ were signed to Track Records which is based in the U.K. If Jay had the trademark, how could that have happened? Ghost —Preceding comment was added at 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide references please to support your views (on either side of the argument)? If there are reliable sources to support any of these claims or that demonstrate anything currently in the article to be incorrect, please present them, so that we can take the opinion out of the article and base it solely on fact. What can't be disputed is that there are currently two bands performing as "Gene Loves Jezebel", and that they bothe have websites, etc. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.gljonline.com/yesterday/words/articles/goldmine010199.html is the article I was referring to. The problem here is that only Michael has the right to perform as GLJ, the other band is falsely calling themselves GLJ and even worse, stating that they are the "Original Members" which just isn't true. As found on James Stevenson's website, jamesstevenson.info, Glen and James' manager also managed Gene Loves Jezebel and in the autumn of 1985, when GLJ's guitarist had a nervous breakdown at the onset of the band's first US tour, James was asked to fly out and finish the gigs. "I knew nothing about GLJ, but I flew out to New York literally the next day. I tried to learn the set on my Walkman on the flight out." While James was out on the arduous seven week tour Gary Holton died of a drugs overdose. The gene Loves Jezebel tour was beset with a multitude of incidents from the outset, from under-age girls running away to follow the band and the tour manager resigning half way through "Everyone on that tour will have their own perspective of it I'm sure, but I guarantee one thing, everyone will remember it as standing out a million miles from all the other tours they've ever done, the sheer madness of it all." James observed later. At the end of the tour Gene Loves Jezebel frontmen, the twins Jay and Michael Aston, asked him to join permanently. The band's third album, Discover, was the first to feature James and also their goth anthem - Desire. This was followed in 1987 by The House Of Dolls which contained The Motion Of Love - the band's biggest UK hit. The band worked incessantly live and in the studio. Relentless tours of the US were interspaced with Europe and Japan. The tensions between the twins led to Michael's departure from the band in 1989 and the remaining four members continued with Jay as sole frontman. The fifth Album, Kiss Of Life, contained their biggest US hit, Jealous, and James also produced a track for Michael's first solo album (Edith Grove) as well as co-writing three songs for it.

How can they claim that he's an original member? --Ghost (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether James is an ORIGINAL member is irrelevant to me. What you have on one side is Michael, who was not in the band for nearly a decade, and his group of hired hands, NONE of whom played in the classic lineup of GLJ. On the other side, you have Jay, James and Pete, who DID play in the classic lineup and have stayed together for more than 20 years (including the near decade of Michael's absence). To most sensible GLJ fans, THIS is the real GLJ. My other point is the fact that you refuse to allow ANY mention of Jay's Gene Loves Jezebel, or a link to their website, in the article despite the fact that they do exist. You are only allowing one side of the coin to be viewed. That is wrong. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Whoever you are: This is where you are wrong. Michael's lack of involvement in GLJ spans from 1989 to 1993. That's not 10 years. Check your facts again and you will see that. The "hired hands" were selected by both Michael AND Jay for the '97 reunion tour. In fact, it's Jay quoted in the Goldmine article as stating they wanted fresh players. Speaking of only allowing "one side of the coin" to be viewed, the Zero Magazine article you quote so much is very one-sided and not impartial at all. The only thing it does do is mention how Michael took part in the recordings for Kiss of Life. Up until then, Jay always said Michael had no involvement at all. This is not his first contradictory statement. The Zero article says how Michael booked the tour as GLJ and Jay didn't know, yet the Goldmine article from years prior is completely different. To say "most sensible GLJ fans" and "Real GLJ" does not provide facts. I have consistently kept this page factual. Jay left the band after VII failed and Michael carried on. Jay lost his lawsuit and Michael controls the band now.--Ghost (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I understand, the whole issue of who controls what, as far as the trademark goes, is still an ongoing battle. I'll just leave it at that. Also, if what you're saying is true, that both Michael AND Jay wanted "fresh musicians" for the tour and subsequent album, what happened to them? How is it that the supposedly "non-fresh" members ended up on the tour and album? How is it that these "fresh musicians" only ended up in MICHAEL'S Gene Loves Jezebel AFTER the final '97 tour?(98.220.43.195 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

It's not an ongoing battle at all. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=2ml4ie.2.1 How did they end up there? Michael carried on with them and released Love Lies Bleeding. --Ghost (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently didn't answer the first part of the question, so I'll ask it again: If what you're saying is true, that both Michael AND Jay wanted "fresh musicians" for the tour and subsequent album, what happened to them? How is it that the supposedly "non-fresh" members ended up on the tour and album? (98.220.43.195 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Also, if the trademark were, uh...hypothetically...obtained fraudulently, that would make it an ongoing concern. For example. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

I never said anything about VII. I don't know why James and them were brought back as I wasn't there. I'm talking about the tour and the article you quote where Jay says he didn't know it was booked as GLJ and he wanted the old members. That simply wasn't true since he said the exact opposite in the Goldmine article. At the time of the Goldmine article, there was no mention of a new album. I don't know where you got that I was also talking about VII. So you think the U.S. Patent Office just awards trademarks to anyone? Can you provide any facts to back this up? I have provided not only a link to the trademark registry, but also an article contradicting the Zero Mag article you quoted so much. I'm pretty sure I could also get my hands on the documents from 1993 showing GLJ budgets with both Michael and Jay's name at the top, James Stevenson's and Pete Rizzo's resignation paperwork, etc.--Ghost (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! O.k., look. Both of those magazine articles cannot be true. If Jay had truly wanted new, fresh musicians on the '97 tour, that's who would have been on the tour -- Michael's hired guns, his "fresh faces." But since that's NOT who was on the tour, then the article stating that they were hired by Michael contrary to Jay's knowledge or wishes must be the accurate article. Since new musicians were NOT used on the tour, it must have gone down exactly like Jay says -- Michael hired the new guys, Jay found out about it, said he wanted the old guys on the tour, and Michael agreed. My guess is Jay was misquoted in the Goldmine article. Writer must have had a hard time keeping track of which twin was which. The new guys never appeared in "Gene Loves Jezebel" until the formation of Michael Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel AFTER the final 1997 split. Meanwhile, after Michael quit or was fired in 1997 (I don't know which and it doesn't matter which -- the point is, he was out of the band), the legitimate GLJ continued on without Michael, as they had done before. That is whay Jay's GLJ is the real GLJ. Michael formed a "new GLJ" after no longer being a member of GLJ, pure and simple. Then Jay sued him, and Jay dropped the suit for two reasons: 1. Michael said he would stop using the name, and 2. the battles were taking their toll on the twins' mother. Michael then went behind Jay's back, continuing to use the GLJ name, and underhandedly acquiring trademarks for the GLJ name -- which, I can tell you, Jay's GLJ ARE currently in a legal process regarding this trademark matter. If you don't think trademarks can be obtained by a former band member underhandedly and behind the backs of affected parties, just ask the members of Klymaxx. The sad thing about all this is, what all of us can agree on, whether we side with Michael's GLJ or Jay's, is our love for songs like "Desire," "Heartache" and "The Motion of Love," and albums like Immigrant, Discover and House of Dolls. What began as a battle between two brothers has now become a battle between GLJ fans. How sad. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

The players were on the tour, check out the series of DVDs available on glj.com. It's right there on film, I believe even a collage can be found on youtube. The lineup that went on to record Love Lies Bleeding WERE on the Pre-Raphaelite Brothers tour in 1997. Nothing I've said is new information, it hasn't changed in the last 10 years. Whatever Jay is or is not doing is irrelevant. What does matter is that Michael runs GLJ these days, as proof by the trademark link above, and this page should reflect the proper band until such time that he relinquishes control. --Ghost (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Were there two tours, maybe? A "Pre-Raphaelite" tour and a "VII" tour? Because if the musicians on the VII tour were Michael's guys, and continued on with him, how could Jay have finished the tour?(98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

So, GhostAston, you have NEVER harrassed ANYONE, and are the victim, huh? Then how do you explain this?(I edited out the rant about Jay and got right to the part directed at Jay's fans. I can add the Jay part back in if you want).

10/26/05

...Then you have some of Jay's fans, who are as deluded as he is. I say "some" because there are people who are fans of both brothers and I have no issue with them. There is also one Jay fan in particular that I care lot about and to her, Lani, I just want you to know this rant has nothing to do with you. There are other people though, some who don't put their names because they are pussies like their false messiah, that just irritate the hell out of me. One guy named Sven that, quite honestly, mangles the English language so badly that it actually hurts to read his posts, has no idea what he is talking about. I think he just discovered the band last year, yet talks like he is an authority. He also tried causing trouble on Michael's board, but he was dealt with. Then there is one of the biggest losers of all, Dan-o as he calls himself, who disabled his spellcheck and must not have made it out of fifth grade. This Prince of White Trash tries to post as me (impossible) and even tried stalking me on amazon.com. That was taken care of and by the way Dan-o, it was me that banned you from Michael's board, not him. Your idea of wit is amusing to me since you type drivel that makes sense only to you and you never even have a decent comeback. Tell you what, graduate from grade school first and then we'll talk, okay?

Then we come to Kristen, the Queen of White Trash herself. I don't think I've ever loathed and despised a person more than her in my life. How does it feel to know you are so hated? You are a psychotic paranoid delusional freak and your belief that you actually matter in the world of GLJ is laughable. Jay keep you on a leash bulldog? He should because I'm sure you have rabies. You think you know all about Michael's relationship with his mother and family like you are actually part of the picture? You are pathetic, a poor excuse for a human being, and quite frankly not worth this effort at all. Please scan the credits from the GLJ albums because I missed your name on them. Oh wait, you were never part of the band. Why would I think that? Could it be because you pretend to be an authority and are anything but? That must be it.

GOTCHA. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

That's from my own personal site and has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. I posted that almost 3 years ago and have never bothered to take it down. Once again, my own site. I never sent it to anyone nor did I post it anywhere else. Not that I need to explain myself to you ever, but you seriously need to stop your harrassment and stick with facts. Bringing up stuff that I have posted on my own site years ago hardly helps your credibility.--Ghost (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GhostAston -- Just now, you removed SOURCED MATERIAL and replaced it with your own, personally written UNSOURCED MATERIAL! Wikipedia editors, this has got to stop! (98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

And hey, I have a question...If Michael felt all along that he was the leader of the REAL Gene Loves Jezebel, why didn't he just call it "Gene Loves Jezebel" from the start? Why did he call it "Michael Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel" for the longest time? Hmmmmm? (98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Michig: Those edits seem fair, thank you. Now we just need to sort out this whole ownership thing, but your assistance is appreciated! --Ghost (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To the Unnamed User: You bring up such tired and old arguments. I've been down this road so many times before, I don't know if I have it in me to do it again. Look through the old messageboard posts, you'll find all of your answers there as you are a few years too late for these discussions. Plus, this isn't the forum to discuss all of this. --Ghost (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Your non-answer is all the answer I need. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

By the way -- when I posted your rant from your website, I was not doing it just to embarass you. But within the rant (which can be viewed in its entirety at http://www. therealglj.bravehost.com/rant.html), you stated that you are a friend of Michael Aston's. And, your words showed an intense hatred of Jay Aston, his GLJ and at least some of his fans. This calls into question your ability to contribute unbiased, neutral, truthful entries into the GLJ article -- especially given your propensity for using unsourced material. You are NOT a neutral third party contributing to this article. One way or another, you have a vested interest in making Michael and his GLJ appear "right," and to make Jay and his GLJ appear "wrong." I wanted the Wikipedia editors to see this. And lest anyone wonder, I am not personally acquainted with, friends with, or employed by Jay Aston or anyone in GLJ. Never had the pleasure to even meet them. I am merely a longtime GLJ fan who seeks to have a fair, unbiased, balanced article on GLJ. Thanks to Wikipedia editor "Michig," this has finally happened. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Here are 2 more articles that contradict the Zero Mag article that's been quoted throughout. http://www.gljonline.com/yesterday/words/articles/rad06-97.html This is another article where Jay knew full well the details behind the '97 tour. It completely goes against the Zero Mag article. http://www.gljonline.com/yesterday/words/articles/rollingstone040599.html In this article, Jay says that Michael hasn't been involved with GLJ for 10 years, yet he acknowledges his presence in the band in the Zero Mag article. Another thing to note is that Jay mentions Michael not being involved with the band during Kiss of Life, yet in the Zero Mag article Michael's time spent recording the song Kiss of Life is discussed. I would imagine these indescrepancies call into question the validity of the Zero Mag article.--Ghost (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Any claim of harrassmenet is laughable and without merit. The facts are as follows, Michael trademarked GLJ in the U.S. and then toured the U.K. resulting in the album Live In Nottingham in 1999. Both the U.S. and the U.K. are Common Law countries and the first to use a trademark in a Common Law country owns it. That is why there is no Jay Aston's GLJ, he is using the band name illegally. I label the incorrect edits as vandalism because to leave that incorrect information in is misleading to fans, promoters, etc. It perpetuates the idea that both brothers have rights to the name when in fact it's only Michael Aston that has exclusive rights. And to the unnamed user that still refuses to get a login, I have never attacked you personally but rather have always stuck with facts. You, on the other hand, have come at me on several pages, not just mine. I have done my best to simply ignore you and stick with the facts, but you have pushed me to the point of needing someone to intervene. --Ghost (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discography

 * Sorry 98.220.43.195, you have gone too far with the discography. Please see Wikipedia music notability guide. Notability is the key to adding to Wikipedia; thus far studio albums have been left - but the compilations, live sets, bootlegs are of little notability. You make it appear that Gene Loves Jezebel in all their guises are on a par with The Beatles. Please get a log-in, stop blanking your talk page and try to contribute constructively. The editor has pieced together two opposed and biased views, however as a genuine third-party, your article still pertains to "wikiality"→ friedfish (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the "Shaving my neck", "Josephina", etc. singles? I can't see any justification for this as I have a reliable source showing that they were released. Please explain.--Michig (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, Friedfish. So much for assuming good faith. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of band/artist articles in Wikipedia which list the release of live and compilation albums in the discography. I was merely trying to paint a more complete picture of the Gene Loves Jezebel discography. You don't have to be so rude. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I see, Friedfish. You referred to me as a nemesis. Nice. I see you are nothing more than a GhostAston accomplice. Neither of you apparently care about a balanced article on Gene Loves Jezebel. Anyone who wants the article to reflect more than just Michael's take on things is a nemesis. Hmm...
 * Hi 98.220.43.195, on Wikipedia - constructive criticism is welcome; ranting is not! Please get a log-in! → friedfish (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And GhostAston -- you may feel the UK trademark is without merit, but who are you to decide this? If Michael had the UK trademark you wouldn't be saying that, I'm sure. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the singles that were removed as I can't see any reason for them being deleted. "Shaving my neck" was an official release on the label they were signed to (Situation 2). As far as I can tell, "Tangled Up In You" was released on Beggars Banquet, and "Josephina" was an official release on Savage-Arista. I don't have label details for "All The Young Dudes", but I am assuming this was officially released by Michael's GLJ.--Michig (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Michig, sorry you've been drawn into this. Agree with comments about "Shaving my neck" (SIT18) and "Tangled Up In You" (BEG249). "Josephina" was released as CD, cassette and vinyl on Savage Records via Arista, though it was released in 1992 and Savage Records were more pay-as-you-go promo label who went bankrupt during Bowie release. No more information on "All The Young Dudes" except it appeared on 2007 Bowie tribute album. Keep up the good work! → friedfish (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "All The Young Dudes" was only released, other than on the album, on a promo-only (?) release. I've changed the discography to reflect this, though I'm not sure that promos should really be included in the discography, although it seems it was for sale through Michael's GLJ website (it's still listed as a limited edition release but says Sold Out).--Michig (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Future directions
Hi guys! Been away for a few days but have been thinking about various directions for the Gene Loves Jezebel page to go. One idea would be to split the group history section up into two (or even three) parts. i.e.Early Career from 1980 to 1989/90; that is the really creative period and the time period that the band were successful. This could be followed by a "Parting of ways and brief reunion" period from 1990-1995; then subsequent years with the separate identities of how the band is today. At moment the article skews the relevance of this excellent band towards the more mundane aspects of protracted legal disagreements. Also needed would be a brief biography of Jay Aston - such as date of birth, where grew up, acts contributed to and musical abilities. In addition, care must be taken with releases of records, for example withdrawn releases and promotional releases should not be included unless there is a strong reason to do so. Your ideas would be welcome! → friedfish (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes along the lines of your suggestion friedfish. They should be more fair. --Ghost (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with Ghost's changes. In fact, I like them. What?...Do we have...CONSENSUS?!?!? :-) 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Aston and his sock puppets
I believe that Michael Aston, the leader of one of the two current Gene Loves Jezebels, is logging in and creating sock puppets all over this article. Some of his sock puppets include Bennysara, Sexydead and Foaming, at least one of which is on the verge of being banned from editing due to disruptive edits, and another of which made bizarre edits referencing Sesame Street characters making out. Is there a way to trace these names back to Mr. Aston's IP address or something, and stop him from hijacking and vandalizing this article? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is showing up wikirage's top 100 (which is what brought me here). Try Requests for administrator attention. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

^Hahaha, what the hell, seriously? Like I'm sure the man would have nothing better do, right? LOL, how paranoid. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Slobodan Svrdlan
I'm currently working on the article about former Yugoslav heavy metal band Gordi, and according to Discogs (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Slobo+Svrdlan), one of the former Gordi members, Slobodan "Slobo" Svrdlan (also a former Warriors member) is currently a member of Michael Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel. Maybe he is behind one of theese two pseudonyms, Pando or Switch? Can anyone help me? Ostalocutanje (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Common Bond Advisor
Two of my close friends are twins and they have a weird thing called “a bond”. This "bond" can only be compared to touching a hot stove to an outsider. I learned this the hard way, by getting burned. A person CANNOT for whatever reason, take a side. It doesn’t matter how violent their fights are or how justified you may feel by choosing one twin over the other. Warning! You will not be liked by either twin, if you say anything too bad. Jay and Michael Aston probably fought inside their mother’s womb. In the very end, don’t be surprised if you are thrown out of their life because you got involved. Fans! Stay mutual! My friends are female's, but I doubt that makes a difference. Just saying.. ;)Crackofdawn (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Biased Comments
There are a lot of snide remarks desparaging Michael Aston's version of the band throughout the article, most of them in bracets {like this}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.137.210 (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gene Loves Jezebel. 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/20081003131524/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/wales/music/sites/jay_aston/pages/biography.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/jay_aston/pages/biography.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Loves Jezebel. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517194524/http://www.gljonline.com:80/yesterday/words/articles/goldmine010199.html to http://www.gljonline.com/yesterday/words/articles/goldmine010199.html

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) 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Loves Jezebel. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705083400/http://www.genelovesjezebel.co.uk/images/Zero-Issue3-Nov05.pdf to http://www.genelovesjezebel.co.uk/images/Zero-Issue3-Nov05.pdf

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) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)