Talk:Maxie Jones

message: Matt Hunter and Johnny Zacchara don't belong there; only Maxie's physical lovers and boyfriends do. It can also be argued that since Matt's flirtation with Maxie was one-sided, he definitely should not be there. Please stop putting them in.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.107.181 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships section

message: I took out the Past part because it made it appear as if the character had no present, looked like everything was past, since everything was included under the headline "Past" DJ-Siren 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: The random capitalization in this article is RIDICULOUS! Could someone fix this up? 24.105.143.110 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization Nightmare

message: The image looks alot like Jen Lilley and not Kirsten Storms. Kirsten currently has short hair and not long hair. The image is bad. Soapfan2013 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's Kirsten back in '09 when she briefly sported a longer hairstyle. Trust me, I did my research, it's Kirsten Storms. She hasn't always had short hair. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 18:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Since everybody was too concerned about the plot themselves, unfortunately, I don't watch General Hospital. I don't know when the events occured, but I could not tell which ones are trivial to this topic. The only sources I can find to determine importance of storylines are weekly recaps; monthly recaps are better and easier to find, but do they exist? If Reception could not be created, then why should this article exist? --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently trying to clean-up the article in my spare time. Stop trying to get soap articles deleted. I said I was working on the page, but I need more than a few weeks, my life doesn't revolve around Wiki. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline needs trimming and real-world perspective for general overview 

message: i think that she should be listed as a temporary recast because it has been implied that when Kirsten Storms is healthy again she will resume her role.  
also, due to fan hatred of Lilley it is highly unlikely that her contract will even be renewed ever.  if Storms is still unable to perform there have been rumors of another temporary recast.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.194.4 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you're not a Jen Lilley fan. I highly doubt GH would mess with people's heads and bring Storms back after what looks like a year of absence. Jen is doing an amazing job in the role, and reports have not seemed to point as Storms returning at all, nor has Storms spoken since her originally announced return. The role of Maxie is Jen's now, "haters" need to face that. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 17:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually, Jen confirmed herself she never signed a contract at all with a show. She signed on to appear as Maxie and then signed on to continue for the foreseeable future. But she never agreed to a contract since she preferred to be on a loose working schedule. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jen Lilley "Recast" 

message: Does the child she carried for Lulu and Dante count as her child, even though she is in no way related to it? I don't think it should be, but it has repeatedly been added back under "children".Caringtype1 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be listed. Even if it was her child the pregnancy was only a few days. Some editors don't think miscarriages should be listed at all. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be kept, she carried it via surrogacy, and the miscarriage is still being mentioned. Jester66 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think describing it in the storylines section is sufficient. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also is putting it under "children", she had the miscarriage, she was the surrogate mother, it counts. Jester66 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because she carried the child, it doesn't mean she's related to it.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: She's the surrogate mother. It still counts. Jester66 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the combination of a surrogacy, a miscarriage and her only being pregnant for one week, I feel it is clutter for the infobox. There are many articles that do not include miscarriages at all. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. Someone is actually trying to call an implanted fetus, that she shares no biological connection with, and that she only carried for a week a child? Nope. Frankly, that's really, really stupid. AniMate 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a damn miscarriage, who cared if it's only an "implanted fetus" and maybe YOU find it as clutter, but other articles include miscarriages and stillborn. But what do I know. So let's keep it blank since she's not pregnant right now. Jester66 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the fact that the child was miscarried, it's the fact that Maxie was in no way related to the child.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children