Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:Michael Kitces

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Nickgray in topic 2020 checking in

Untitled

edit

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

Untitled

edit

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)Reply

Delete

edit

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)Reply

Agreed: this is a puff piece made by either Kitces or someone connected to him. It needs to be deleted ASAP. @Theroadislong: 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)Reply
edit

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

check Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

2020 checking in

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply