Talk:Michael Kitces

Untitled
Wow, thanks so much to whoever created a biography for me! I'm honored! Mkitces (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC) -Michael Kitces

Untitled
I have attempted to make changes to this article to conform to requests from the recent AfD discussion. If further changes are suggested from reviewers, please feel free to note here or contact me. Thanks. Finplanwiki (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete
The problem is the reliable sources. The only thing that qualifies is the WSJ article and that is just a mention in an article. This entry does not meet the guideline minimum.--WondoMathias (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed: this is a puff piece made by either Kitces or someone connected to him. It needs to be deleted ASAP. Can you advise? I noticed that you've edited this article in the past. How do we get this deleted because I can't find much of anything establishing this subject's notability per WP:DEL-REASON. If you could tag the article for a discussion or something that would be great. I don't know the process after its already been proposed for deletion (twice at that). BennyHartmen (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Kitces. 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/20131228040048/http://www.financial-planning.com/news/movers-shakers-2006-527340-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1 to http://www.financial-planning.com/news/movers-shakers-2006-527340-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

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) 02:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

2020 checking in
This article would benefit from splitting it into different sections, right? To make it easier to read. I will give it a shot -- feel free to revert my edits if they are not helpful. Nickgray (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the article still reads self-promotional. It would benefit from an edit, or some sort of tag warning readers that it feels... I forget the words (w/apologies, still new around here)... it feels biased. Some of the marketing-copy can be trimmed on review. Nickgray (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)