Talk:Margaret Cho

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

Quotes[edit]

Do we really need the quote from her comedy routine? Can't we just link to a website for stuff like that? --Ed Poor, November 2002

Although the person commenting on the fact that the quote is the best part of the page sort of shows it's value, I'll answer your question more directly: first, the first quote isn't from her comedy routine, it's from an NPR interview. And secondly, quotes from comedians are valuable to an encylopedic entry if they give an example of the type of material they address; anything factual that can help clarify for the reader the content of the entry is valuable. -- Anon (68.16.134.146), July 15, 2003
The source of the Asian origin quote needs to be specified. (What's NPR? Magazine? Issue #? Year? Or tv episode airing date?) --Menchi 18:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
NPR is National Public Radio, as in the most famous American radio station in existance. (Arguably, perhaps, but c'mon, seriously.) I don't know what the airdate of the quote was.
I think the 2 quotes are basically the essence of her humour: what she experiences the most. We could incorporate those into the main body and chop the complete quote into pieces, but that sounds like an academic research paper, and the original quotes loss their true flavour. In any case, most ppl are too lazy to click on an additional link -- external most of all -- even it's right in front of their faces. However, I think anything more than 3 quotes might not fit into this page and needs to go into the articles on her shows or whatnot. --Menchi 18:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We have the Wikiquote project for that very purpose....I am always confused as to why people insist that they need to fill the Wikipedia article with quotes. NickBurns 18:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

And which body awarded her the best comedian award? (I assume there isn't just one award for the whole world.) --Ed Poor, November 2002

Somebody took care of this apparently. --Menchi 18:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"She has also frequently supported gay rights and identifies herself as bisexual, winning several awards for her efforts."

That's hysterical. 12.135.58.53 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)scharles[reply]

General feedfacks[edit]

Great Page! AntonioMartin

Awesome page, but if anyone has the Hangul for her Korean name, will they please post it! Thank you Iluvchineselit 04:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Content Question[edit]

I was under the idea that her title "Notorious C.H.O" was a spoof on/from the late rapper Biggies Smalls album titled "The Notorious B.I.G". Anybody second this?

That's exactly what the page says; that it is taken from Notorious K.I.M., which is FURTHER taken from Notorious B.I.G.; but Cho's DIRECT influence was K.I.M, as evidenced by the photos accompanying the tour where she dressed like Lil' Kim.

Excellent page. And that quote is first class. It had me in stitches. We need more stuff like this on wiki. That quote on its own makes the hours I spent on wiki tonight worth it! FearÉIREANN 05:23 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Mic turned off[edit]

What source says that the audience complained? Both sources that I can find, one of them Cho's own blog, say it was the manager. [1][2]

In 2004 Cho was performing at a corporate gig in a hotel when, after 10 minutes, her microphone was cut off by the hotel manager and a band instructed to begin playing.
This was because the conservative audience was offended by anti-Bush-administration comments.
or
This was because the manager of the hotel was offended by anti-Bush-administration comments.

Unless someone can find better sources which implicate the audience as a whole, the sourced version should remain. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you check Ms Cho’s blog on http://www.margaretcho.com/blog/theyturnedoffthemic.htm She doesn’t say manager, the material wasn’t specifically about Bush, and she didn’t say who was offended. Apparently the payment did eventually come through, and Margaret donated the money to the West Memphis Three. -LesbianLatke 18:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The other source gives more information:
In 2004 Cho was performing at a corporate gig in a hotel when, after 10 minutes of comedy, her microphone was cut off and a band instructed to begin playing. This was because the manager of the hotel was offended by anti-Bush-administration comments. Cho's payment, which was issued by way of check directly to a non-profit organization, bounced.[3]
Therefore, it seems appropriate, unless there are additional sources, to write what has been reported. -Willmcw 21:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you give more creedance to an unattributed account on a commercial ticket website, than to the artist's own account of events. Some would call this sloppy journalism (encyclopism?). -LesbianLatke 22:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

They don't conflict so it is not a matter of giving more credence to one source over another. One source simply has additional details. Many editors would give additional credence to independent sources rather than to a blog by the subject. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project[edit]

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a gay icon, not a trans icon -- what exactly has she done for trans women? AFAIK, nothing. In fact, she's been quite trans misogynistic from what I've heard. Just thought the facts should get checked. Wikipedia is full of this bull. People, hello! St85 —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Irony and picture[edit]

Isn't it ironic that this is listed as a "korea-related stub," despite the routine listed on the page talking about her non-affiliation with korea? i honestly think it should be removed---it's not even pragmatic.

second, the picture is of a malenky big cho. perhaps a thinner pic, or an added pic of her now would be fair? Lockeownzj00 02:45, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complaints?[edit]

Cut from article:

Cho has discussed the fact that she was forced to lose a very large amount of weight in order to play what was essentially herself. She was also told she was "not Asian enough," and then later, "too Asian".

"Discussed the fact" sounds like a complaint and/or claim. Please revise the sentence so that this is clear. Something like:

  • Cho complained that Producer X ordered to lose weight (or be fired). She complained about this in an interview with Y, in which she also said the director Z said she was too asian and producre Q said she was too Asian. [source here]

Otherwise, it disrupts the flow of the paragraph I cut it from. Uncle Ed 00:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dogs[edit]

"Cho has three dogs, all adopted."

-- As opposed to her being their birth mother?  :-D

LOL! As opposed to her buying them, I think is the meaning. :)

I would tend to support 24.0.77.170's suggestion that mention of Cho's dogs isn't noteworthy in this article. Does anyone else agree? Kasreyn 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, actually. agreed.--67.122.63.226 02:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless she is planning on eating them... 119.12.47.66 (talk)KL —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's been a long day.[edit]

I made some grammatical corrections, and in my corrections comments, I mis-spelled grammatical.

But, it was a minor portion in the section about her microphone being turned off that I edited.

I added a link for 'fear' (I had to), and I restructured the sentence.

I spelled everything right.

To leader hosing[edit]

I do not appreciate your remarks towards me in the edit summary. Please refer to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I am baffled by them as well, because I cannot see anything in my edit summaries that could have led you to the belief that I was a supporter or fan of Cho. I referred only to a non-notable junk poll. Please do not attempt to read my mind in the future, OK? Kasreyn 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors: I have hit 3RR on that specific revert-war for today. Kasreyn 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim[edit]

Ok. Is there anyone here who feels the Maxim reader's poll is relevant this article? Someone seems hell-bent on keeping it in, under various user names: 24.0.77.170 (talk · contribs), Margaret Choad (talk · contribs) (indef. blocked, now), Leader Hosing (talk · contribs), and now Margaret Chowed (talk · contribs). The 4th is an obvious recreation of the 2nd. All are making trying to add the same edits to the same articles (this one and Cracker (pejorative) come up frequently in the contribution histories). --Q Canuck 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite right. Look at this, where Margaret_Chowed admits to being Margaret_Choad. I'm tempted to bring this to the attention of an admin, but so far all they've done with the account is to revert war. Kasreyn 00:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, there seem to be strong similarities between the posting patterns of editors who edit both Margaret Cho and Cracker (pejorative); these editors tend to get talk page warnings for blanking without discussion (and blank them), and indeed seem to completely eschew discussion altogether. They also tend to be relatively new editors and have little to nothing on their user page. I strongly suspect that multiple sockpuppets may be in use. I will feel confirmed in this opinion if this article gets a visit from either user Evil Byrd or Senator Cooter, who both share several of these characteristics with Leader Hosing et al. I suspect one of these editors will be along shortly to revert the Maxim poll back in. Kasreyn 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I find that a striking correlation continues to build between editors who frequently edit articles on lists of slurs and profane terms, and the tendency to restore the Maxim poll. There's also a rather startling number of new editors to the article whose first contribution is this restoration. Further research is certainly required, though. I'll continue to post my findings here, folks.  :) Kasreyn 05:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a valid pop-culture criticism of a pop-culture figure. Otherwise this is just a fluff piece. MelonSmasher 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop culture" is an extremely broad category. I'd say it's reasonable to suggest that there is room within it for genres which have little or nothing to do with each other - such as a men's girly mag and a lesbian comedian. I'm not saying Maxim's readers aren't entitled to their opinion. I'm just saying that their opinions are not particularly notable as Maxim readers aren't known as comedians or comedy fans. Kasreyn 06:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a junk poll that has no bearing on comedy or comedians or any of the (mostly female and of color right?) comedians they decided to rank as 'worst.' It's petty and inconsequential, and has more relevance to a maxim wiki, if that. --67.122.63.226 02:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fairly unresearched view from an anonymous contributor. There are plenty of white male comedians on the list as well. MonkeyHateClean 03:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! 4 whole white male comedians on the list - out of 12! Amazing! A whole 1/3! Not very indicative of their representation in comedy now is it? In fact this asexist racist list has the most female comedians I've ever seen on a comedy list. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.63.226 (talk) 17:34, October 16, 2006
Thank you, anonymous editor, for admitting the poll is "asexist", meaning "without sexism." The Reel World 02:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, there is no policy or guideline that states that the opinions of IP editors are to be given less weight than those of logged-in editors. Without a checkuser, that could be Jimbo slumming for all we know. Refer to WP:AGF and so on. Kasreyn 05:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To MonkeyHateClean - my view is not unresearched, thanks. And as for being anonymous? Honey, all I know about you is that your name is 'MonkeyHateClean' - that's a lot more anonymous than posting under your IP address. --67.122.63.226 19:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be the late Ann Richards, would you? There is a resemblance. MonkeyHateClean 03:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be a poor imitation of an SNL skit would you? There's little resemblance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.63.226 (talk) 17:37, October 16, 2006
An editor of this article pointed me to this discussion as evidence that there is consensus to remove the Maxim poll. Reading this discussion, it does not appear that there is consensus at this time to remove this item. In the balance, the poll, while not flattering, is verifiable information about the topic, and I think one would need to be particularly careful in getting consensus before removing it, as removing it without consensus would imply vandalism by blanking information. --Zippy 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is no consensus to remove. The Reel World 02:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I will now add incidents in which Cho has been honored for her comedy to contrast the poll. 66.16.165.41 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim (the actual numbers)[edit]

Truth be told, there were eleven names on the list of worst comedians, since the Gallagher brothers were listed together. Of the eleven, 8 were white, 2 were black, and one was Asian; hardly racist. Of the eleven, 6 were female, and 5 were male. Sexist? Perhaps, but not overwhelmingly so, especially for a men's magazine. The Reel World 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe ANY top-list of the worst comedians that doesn't include Jim Davidson or Pee-Wee Herman :-) SmUX 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I think the current picture is terrible. She's sweaty, leaning forward so it looks like she has a fat neck, and her face can't really be seen. I suggest it be changed to the one on her myspace profile, it's much better. Any thoughts?

http://myspace-406.vo.llnwd.net/00242/60/41/242031406_m.jpg[/img]81.76.99.58 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a great promo photo but I can't get it to display properly. Midnightguinea 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't she claim not to care if she was overweight? If whe doesn't care, why should we? The Reel World 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any non-free photo will likely be deleted. The thinking in WP now is that there's almost no legitimate "fair use" claim to photos of living people. We need someone to take a picture. -Will Beback · † · 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The article is void of any images. The image that is already uploaded to Wikipedia is not in violation of any fair use doctrine. Wikipedia:Fair use states that images that are not in compliance with fair use will be deleted within 48 hours, and this has obviously not been the case with this image. — Sam 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests[edit]

A lot of these requests for citation are out of hand and too much. For instance there is a request for a citation proving that her show "Asassin" was more politically based than her other shows; that's just fact! I mean, it's called "Assasin!" and the poster has Cho dressed like Patty Hearst. It's just self-evident. There is no need for citations of things that are just surface-facts. 66.16.165.41 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Magazine Experts On Comedy?[edit]

Since when did the people on Maxim magazine and its readers become a viable source on comedy commentary?

Its like Hustler or Playboy or Sports Illustrated writers and readers being experts on comedy.

This trivia piece does not adhere to WP:LIVING so I'm taking it out. It's malicious POV, so in order to stay it would have to be super-relevant, and it's just not. It's gone. — coelacan talk — 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Someone complained that I had not waited for consensus before removing this. We don't wait for consensus when it is a damaging statement on a living person. Read WP:LIVING. This is damaging, so it must be cited and highly relevant. Even if it were cited, it's not relevant. What one readers' poll of one magazine decided about Whoopi is not a notable contribution to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Readers polls are not scientific in anyway. They are journalistic tricks designed to help sell magazines. I agree that it is not suitable. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reader's poll, it's an anonymously written article. Whoever wrote the damn thing wouldn't even own up to it. I don't think it's appropriate or notable. - George100 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone keeps putting it back...... NickBurns 02:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

This article seemed to be very messy, so I really tried to reshape it and just move things around without being too drastic.

I did make everything one reference style, and deleted the long quote (which IMHO, should be in Wikiquote). I know there may be some debate on the quote issue....

But I think most of the details of Margaret's life and career are ordered now, and the article should be easier to update. NickBurns 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog discussion[edit]

I suggest the editors warring about the dog names hash it out here instead of constantly reverting one another on the article page. Aleta 03:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The section is trivia, and I think her dogs names are of interest as a bit of trivia. I don't think it's right to whitewash wiki to suit one person's POV on what is acceptable trivia. --Larrybet 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, see the section "Dogs" above. This is old biz. MonkeyHateClean 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the revert warring continues... -Aleta 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears somebody will not let sleeping dogs lie outside of the article. MonkeyHateClean 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny because the only discussion I see above is about whether or not her dogs, plural, are relevant. If Asiatic Flu sees fit to mention one of her dogs then all are relevant in the trivia section. I do not see how the opinion of one person should hold sway. --Larrybet 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one reference is only notable because she named her dog after a vicious murderer; revealing something about Cho. Naming dogs after cars and actors is not notable - as already determined by a prior consensus. If anything should be discussed, it is whether naming a dog after a terrorist is notable. Asiatic Flu 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She also named the dog after the Valkyrie Gudrun of Norse mythology, which is just as notable. Her naming of her dog after the Actor Ralph Fiennes is just as notable for revealing something about herself. And this IS the trivia section, so I find the name of her other pets just as notable for those interested. --Larrybet 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should read the manual of style page dealing with trivia, and may find it useful to read this essay about the same topic. -Aleta 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - thank you Aleta. Asiatic Flu 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - thank you Aleta. --Larrybet 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're both welcome.  :) -Aleta 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - I'd like to suggest to Asiatic Flu to refrain from inserting lies and POV into the main article. Let's stick to the facts. --Larrybet 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the lie you told when you reversed the order of the "thank you"s to Aleta? A clever liar would have changed the timestamps. I have put them back in the chronological order. I will refrain from inserting the truth as soon as you stop telling falsehoods. Asiatic Flu 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reverse time=stamps because I'm not lying. Don't be silly. I didn't realize I have to comment below you Asiatic. Oh that's right - I don't. --Larrybet 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up here honey. You're a little confused again. Asiatic Flu 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Larry, Asiatic Flu is making a lot more sense than you are. Naming a dog after an actor or a car is just not notable, but naming a new model of car after a dog, or an actor named after a dog might be. For example, "Hey, I'm driving an 07 Beagle," or "The Oscar goes to Spot Goldstein." Now those might be notable. What IS notable is naming your dog after a German terrorist - that's downright perverse. MonkeyHateClean 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Hey - I just remembered that Indiana Jones named himself after the family dog - that's a riot. (from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)[reply]

Naming a dog after an actor and a goddess are both notable bits of trivia. Asiatic Flu simply wishes to highlight the naming of one pet because of his/her POV about what it means. If it is notable, so are the others, and of interest for the same reasons that trivia about a well-known figure is of interest. Perhaps this should be moved to the personal life section in fact. Asiatic Flu has also inserted a blatantly false statement (which I take to be his/her POV and interpretation) into the main part of the article, which is not supported by any source and he/she should refrain from doing so again. --Larrybet 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming your puppy after a terrorist is sick - and therefore note worthy. The other names - not so note worthy. 63.164.145.85 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - it is your POV that it is both sick and noteworthy, and you are pushing your POV, including in a false statement you posted elsewhere on the page that Cho admires a terrorist. There is no source that supports that. In fact, in the source you list, she states that this is a 'bad name for a very good girl,' which signals to the reader no such admiration that you are attempting to ascribe to her. Another, and more common, POV is that many people name their pets 'bad' names for a variety of reasons. Al Capone? Killer? Little Devil? There is an entire website devoted to cats who look like Hitler. You cannot post your particular POV as fact. According to the source, the dog in question is also named after a Norse goddess, a fact which you keep deleting to suit your POV. --Larrybet 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that one of the dog's names is no more/less significant than the others (no matter how odd I may find her name selections). I don't see that any of the pet names are significant enough to include in an encyclopedia article about her. Aleta 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as Aleta advised. I hope other editors can be satisfied with that direction and stop their antics. Asiatic Flu 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, I am glad to see someone edited your heavily POV and libelous claim that she has expressed admiration for terrorists (blatant lie). I have also moved the statement you are trying so hard to keep in here, to the trivia section, as both the exact quote and the extended context prove that it has nothing to do with her political advocacy. Actually, I do not find it worth mentioning even in trivia, as one could pull any number of trivial quotes from a blog and throw up on a wiki entry. I propose that it be removed unless you can show cause as to why it is is relevant. --Larrybet 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CantStandYa, Asiatic Flu and MonkeyHateClean are the same user, sockpuppets of banned user:CantStandYa. -Will Beback · † · 04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the City appearance[edit]

My memory isn't the best, but didn't she appear in an episode of Sex and the City? Maybe this could be mentioned in the article, as I recall she played a character not unlike herself Cattona 12:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't said that she will vote for Obama or Clinton. Re-read the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.50.124 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean name / birthname[edit]

Shouldn't Margaret's birthname or Korean name be written in the Asian format? As in Cho Moran, or Cho Mo Ran, instead of Moran Cho? xero-7 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She grew up in San Francisco using the western format of "Moran Cho". She refers to herself as Moran cho in her autobiography: (http://www.margaretcho.com/articles/individual_articles/rosie_book_excerpt.htm). I think we should leave the western rendition as Moran Cho, but perhaps provide the Cho Moran style written in 한글, if anyone knows the 한글 form of it. Sneeper (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Vandalism removed)

Uh, why would she even have a Chinese name since she's Korean? CouplandForever (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret revealed that a recent DNA test proved that her family was of Chinese descent. This was publicly stated by her on the January 10, 2013 episode of the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlawSipper (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant datum?[edit]

I just removed this:

She was interviewed by comedian Dawn French in her television program Girls Who Do Comedy, which profiled thirty female comedians. ref "Girls Who Do: Comedy". IMDb. /ref

Does this belong in the Personal section? Is it even useful? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing With the Stars[edit]

There is absolutely nothing added about her appearance on Dancing with the Stars on her article. I think this needs to be added, but I am not sure where it should be. Kind Regards, Whitestorm13 (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Margaret Cho. 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 to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Margaret Cho. 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 to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Margaret Cho/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs reference citations and references. Badbilltucker 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Margaret Cho. 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: 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) 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Margaret Cho. 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) 04:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Margaret Cho. 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) 08:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Cho. 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) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Cho&oldid=1193944860"