Suggestions for the Wiki

Local Chapters, Wiki, and general Bogleheads community discussion, news, events, and announcements
Post Reply
User avatar
dodecahedron
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by dodecahedron » Sat Aug 27, 2016 7:24 am

Suggestions for additions to wiki age checklist are here.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:38 am

Miriam2 wrote:Regarding our fabulous wiki :happy
Sometimes it is frustrating using the wiki search box and I wish for an index or table of contents.
Apparently there is an index, I just never knew where it was = it's called the "complete article list"

It is found by, on the wiki home page, scrolling down to "Can't find what you're looking for?" and there will be a link to the "complete article list" which brings up an alphabetical list of wiki articles, which link to the specific article. The complete article list index page, however, is not called complete article list or index or table of contents, it's called "All pages."

I may not be the only person who missed this index. Perhaps this link could be re-named "Index of Articles" and also a link called "index" could be included on the more visible left hand side of the wiki home page, along with the "site navigation" and "recent changes" column. It may make it easier for viewers to find articles in the wiki.

Are you looking for something other than the topical index at the top of the page? Look to the right of:

"Bogleheads® wiki
- Investing Advice Inspired by Jack Bogle"

... contains a series of links which drill-down every major subject in the wiki.

(Mobile devices will see this as a series of links just underneath the tag line "- Investing Advice Inspired by Jack Bogle".)

For background info, we copy everything we can from Wikipedia. Compare the wiki home page to Wikipedia. The topical list is at the top of the page.

"All pages" was added to help readers if they get stuck. It's part of the wiki software, so it's not amenable to retitling. We need to keep it as-is.

Did this answer your question?
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:44 pm

dodecahedron wrote:Suggestions for additions to wiki age checklist are here.

Thanks! I have replied in Re: Suggestion for the Wiki Checklist of Important Dates.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
dodecahedron
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by dodecahedron » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:05 pm

LadyGeek wrote:
dodecahedron wrote:Suggestions for additions to wiki age checklist are here.

Thanks! I have replied in Re: Suggestion for the Wiki Checklist of Important Dates.


Thanks! I spotted an additional correction noted on that thread here.

morenoh149
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:01 am

Re: Join the Wiki!

Post by morenoh149 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:05 am

I would like to fix an erroneous image caption at https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-f ... uard_funds

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Join the Wiki!

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:38 pm

Welcome! Can you point out the exact error? I reviewed Vanguard funds and don't see anything wrong. I may have missed something, though.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Miriam2
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:51 am

Re: Join the Wiki!

Post by Miriam2 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:37 pm

In my never-ending effort to learn about Roth conversions :annoyed , I found several corrections that could be made in the wiki article "Roth IRA Conversion" (there are 2 Roth IRA Conversion articles in the index that appear to be the same article) wiki/Roth_IRA_conversion

1 - At the bottom External Links, the wiki links to an article by Vanguard, Maria Bruno and Alisa Shin, "Estate Planning Opportunities with Roth IRA Conversions," March 2010. The link no longer works. The correct link is www.vanguard.com/pdf/s623.pdf I read the article and it still seems relevant, but I'm no Roth conversion estate planning expert :D

2 - External links IRS Publications 590-A and 590-B says 2014 versions, but the link is actually to the 2015 versions.

3 - In the References section, footnote 2 and 3 are for IRS Publication 590, the 2009 version, but the link goes to "pages not found."
Also, Q - do we still need them because they apply to 2010 Roth conversions, which are over and done with :happy

4 - The References section footnote 5 link only leads to a Vanguard News page, not to the article on "Roth IRA conversions: 4 Things You May Not Know." Searching for the article on google brings up an "In The Vanguard® PDF" www.vanguard.com/pdf/itvsummer2010.pdf?2210047840, but since this article explains 2010 conversions, Q - is it still valuable for the wiki?

Also, is this the correct thread to bring these types of corrections to the awesome wiki leaders, or should I start a new topic? 8-)

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:31 pm

morenoh149 - I moved your post into here, which is for wiki suggestions. If you can describe the error and wish to fix it yourself, instructions for becoming a wiki editor are at the bottom of the wiki home page ("Contributing to the wiki"). Or, you can PM me with your request.

Also note that suggestions to correct the wiki can be entered in the "Help improve this page" form, which is at the bottom of every wiki page. No login is required.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Join the Wiki!

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:43 pm

Miriam2 wrote:In my never-ending effort to learn about Roth conversions :annoyed , I found several corrections that could be made in the wiki article "Roth IRA Conversion" (there are 2 Roth IRA Conversion articles in the index that appear to be the same article) wiki/Roth_IRA_conversion

1 - At the bottom External Links, the wiki links to an article by Vanguard, Maria Bruno and Alisa Shin, "Estate Planning Opportunities with Roth IRA Conversions," March 2010. The link no longer works. The correct link is www.vanguard.com/pdf/s623.pdf I read the article and it still seems relevant, but I'm no Roth conversion estate planning expert :D

2 - External links IRS Publications 590-A and 590-B says 2014 versions, but the link is actually to the 2015 versions.

3 - In the References section, footnote 2 and 3 are for IRS Publication 590, the 2009 version, but the link goes to "pages not found."
Also, Q - do we still need them because they apply to 2010 Roth conversions, which are over and done with :happy

4 - The References section footnote 5 link only leads to a Vanguard News page, not to the article on "Roth IRA conversions: 4 Things You May Not Know." Searching for the article on google brings up an "In The Vanguard® PDF" www.vanguard.com/pdf/itvsummer2010.pdf?2210047840, but since this article explains 2010 conversions, Q - is it still valuable for the wiki?

Also, is this the correct thread to bring these types of corrections to the awesome wiki leaders, or should I start a new topic? 8-)

Thanks, Roth IRA conversion has been revised.

1. The link has been updated.

2. I fixed the title to remove the year. The IRS uses the same link every year, which makes things easy to manage.

3. Since the links are long gone and you've made the suggestion, I removed the 2010 Roth conversion section. Here's the previous version which contains the 2010 section: Revision as of 13:52, 10 December 2015

4. I replaced the link. Is it valuable for the wiki? Yes, but only if it accurately reflects current tax law.

Also... I moved your post into the right thread. If you want to be sure of the wiki article's content, I recommend starting a new thread in the Personal Finance (Not Investing) forum asking for an "expert" review. (Can the experts please review...)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Miriam2
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:51 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by Miriam2 » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:06 pm

Perhaps the acronym OMY (for One More Year - one more year of working before retirement) could be added to the wiki list of abbreviations and acronyms, as suggest by #Cruncher :happy

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=205000&newpost=3146064
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Abbrevi ... ronyms#L-Q

livesoft
Posts: 55916
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by livesoft » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:08 pm

Is there an "Invest Now or Wait?" article? This is an FAQ, so should have a developed answer to link to.

It is not quite the "LS vs DCA" question.
This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:28 pm

Miriam2 wrote:Perhaps the acronym OMY (for One More Year - one more year of working before retirement) could be added to the wiki list of abbreviations and acronyms, as suggest by #Cruncher :happy

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=205000&newpost=3146064
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Abbrevi ... ronyms#L-Q

Thanks, the wiki has been updated. I replied to #Cruncher in Re: The value of OMY for early retirees (bridge years).
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

morenoh149
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:01 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by morenoh149 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:34 pm

When you hover over the pie charts at https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-f ... uard_funds the ratios displayed are inconsistent with what the charts show. E.g., 56/24/20 should instead be 64/20/16 .

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:05 pm

Thanks! The hover text is fixed: Three-fund portfolio

(More than one wiki editor worked on this, it wasn't just me.)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
pondering
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:04 pm
Location: 412-977-3526, originally 718-273-2422

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by pondering » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:50 pm

For the slides showing loan repayment it would be nice to also link to a google doc model that shows the loan amount an repayments dynamically.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Boglehe ... cy_project

General Credit Scores
Available as: Slides

I'd add a link to a model
--Robert Sterbal | 412-977-3526 call/text

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:50 am

Sorry, I thought you wanted to provide a general wiki comment. I answered your suggestion here: Re: Help create a Financial Presentation: Calling all Bogleheads
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

hushpuppy
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:33 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by hushpuppy » Sat May 20, 2017 10:16 am

Due to the situation of pro-rating across all non-uniquely numbered Roth accounts, when re-characterizing, I suggest insertion of a warning about ensuring each conversion is placed in a new uniquely numbered Roth account.

From Michael Kitces article: Splitting A Roth Conversion Into Multiple Accounts To Isolate Investments For Strategic Recharacterization https://www.kitces.com/blog/splitting-a ... erization/

Example 2a. Jeremy converted $50,000 of XYZ stock from his traditional IRA into his Roth IRA, adding it to an existing $200,000 Roth IRA account balance that’s invested in a broad range of assets (bringing the total up to $250,000). Early next year, Jeremy realizes that the $50,000 of XYZ stock has declined 30% (to $35,000), while the rest of the account is up 20% (to $240,000). As a result, Jeremy would like to recharacterize the XYZ stock conversion, since it triggered $50,000 of income tax consequences but is now only worth $35,000. However, he cannot just recharacterize the stock; instead, he must recharacterize a pro-rata share of the entire account. As a result, if Jeremy wishes to recharacterize, he would be required to recharacterize $55,000 (since the total account balance started at $250,000 and is now $275,000, so in the aggregate it is up 10%), which means he would have to put back all of the XYZ stock and another $20,000 of investments that were originally in the Roth IRA in the first place! Realizing how disadvantageous this would be, Jeremy decides not to do so!

Fortunately, there is a way to avoid the unfavorable result of the preceding example. Under Treasury Regulation 1.408A-5, Q&A-2(c)(4), the pro-rata recharacterization rule only applies to the actual IRA containing the particular contribution to be recharacterized. As a result, if a Roth conversion occurs to a standalone account, only that account – and the associated gains/losses – must be considered when completing a recharacterization.


I am thinking insertion of a warning about ensuring each conversion is placed in a new uniquely numbered Roth account should go in the Wiki in all places related to creating a Roth, converting to a Roth, transferring a Roth and recharacterizing a Roth. Hopefully, this kind of warning could avoid the financially harmful outcome described in Mr. Kitces example 2a quoted above. If this has already been considered, my apologies. I did not see any mention in the Wiki Re-characterization page, which prompted my post.

Thanks for reading.

hushpuppy

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sat May 20, 2017 11:27 am

Thanks! We should get a forum consensus on how to proceed. I started a new topic to discuss: [Wiki] - Pro-rata rule impact on Roth IRA recharacterization
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

deskjockey
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by deskjockey » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:36 am

The expense ratios for the Thrift Savings Plan funds found here need updating. The 2016 ratios were 0.038 for all except the I fund, which has an expense ratio of 0.039. Here is a link to the source.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:59 am

Thanks! I updated the page: Thrift Savings Plan

Those fees have increased since the last wiki update. I compared the revised fees against the listed Vanguard fund. While Vanguard's fees did come down, they're still about 2x higher than the TSP.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Miriam2
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:51 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by Miriam2 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:08 pm

Found typo - missing "s" - in first paragraph of https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Expense_ratios

"The fund's expense ratio is taken out of the fund's assets and lowers its return to investors."

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:12 pm

Thanks, see: Expense ratios

The wiki is a collaborative effort. Another editor (not me) has fixed the typo.

The wiki uses the same software as Wikipedia. To see editing activity, click on the View history tab in the top-right corner of the page.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
celia
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by celia » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:07 pm

I've been noticing more posts lately by non-US investors wondering how to get started (or they aren't sure if they are doing things properly). Do we have a wiki page to help get them started? We may want to separate suggestions into European Union, Australian, and other places where they have a Vanguard "division" available (or not).

At least we should pull together generic principles they can follow, although US taxes, retirement plans, SS won't apply to them.

Recent thread from other countries:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223720

User avatar
BeBH65
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by BeBH65 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:48 pm

celia wrote:I've been noticing more posts lately by non-US investors wondering how to get started (or they aren't sure if they are doing things properly). Do we have a wiki page to help get them started? We may want to separate suggestions into European Union, Australian, and other places where they have a Vanguard "division" available (or not).

At least we should pull together generic principles they can follow, although US taxes, retirement plans, SS won't apply to them.

Recent thread from other countries:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223720
Hi Celia,

We do have a number of county specific pages in the wikias well as 3 pages focussed on taxation outside of the US.
Some of the members on the forum are regular contributors on NON-US threads; if we recognize them --> I always ask them to add their country in the title.

Bogleheads Investment principles can apply for many non-US investors.
In some countries Vanguard is not the best supplier to implement these principles.

Regards
BeBH65. (only an investment enthusiast, not a financial adviser, perform your due diligence).

User avatar
celia
Posts: 6747
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by celia » Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:36 am

Thank you, BeBH65. This is better than what I has hoping for and can at least get international users started.

I have bookmarked the referenced page for future referrals.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:05 pm

celia - that's an excellent suggestion. You should not have to bookmark an important topic, especially for our readers outside the US.

Being bold, I have added an "Investors outside the US" section to Getting started.

I incorporated BeBH65's suggestions, along with some guidance for US ex-pats.

If anything needs an update, please post here. Wiki editors can update the page directly.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

deskjockey
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by deskjockey » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:55 am

While doing some research on 529 plan, I stumbled across a change in the rules regulating how losses are computed for 529 plans that makes the information here in the Wiki about calculating the loss or gain from a distribution in a 529 plan outdated. It seems that the PATH act in 2015 repealed the aggregation requirement when calculating a loss. See this link for a technical discussion of how the IRS implemented it and this one for the instructions (scroll to the "Losses on QTP Investments" section).

On a separate note, I found this handy calculator at Vanguard that allows you to do a quick and dirty comparison at to whether to keep money in a UTMA or move it over to a custodial 529 account. It takes into account the kiddie tax, tax-free 529 disbursements, and the expense ratio of the UTMA and 529 investments (you provide that info). While not perfect, it's a good starting point for deciding between those two vehicles when dealing with a custodial account and may merit inclusion in the Wiki.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:47 pm

Thanks! The page has been revised: 529 plan

Note that two wiki editors have worked on the page. The top-right corner of the wiki page shows the editing activity. View history
deskjockey wrote:On a separate note, I found this handy calculator at Vanguard that allows you to do a quick and dirty comparison at to whether to keep money in a UTMA or move it over to a custodial 529 account. It takes into account the kiddie tax, tax-free 529 disbursements, and the expense ratio of the UTMA and 529 investments (you provide that info). While not perfect, it's a good starting point for deciding between those two vehicles when dealing with a custodial account and may merit inclusion in the Wiki.
Interesting, the Vanguard UGMA/UTMA conversion calculator is not Vanguard's website. It's "powered by" Wealth Management Systems, Inc. The website redirects to DST Systems, a financial outsourcing company.

Put a few numbers into the calculator and hit "Calculate results". A comprehensive report and assumptions show up.

How accurate is this calculator? IOW, what is meant by "good enough as a quick and dirty comparison? If the calculator is useful, it can be put into the wiki. However, the limitations should be clearly documented.

We have the following wiki pages:
- 529 plan
- Kiddie tax
- Uniform Gift to Minors Act

Can someone suggest some wording for these pages?
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

deskjockey
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by deskjockey » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:23 am

LadyGeek wrote:
deskjockey wrote:On a separate note, I found this handy calculator at Vanguard that allows you to do a quick and dirty comparison at to whether to keep money in a UTMA or move it over to a custodial 529 account. It takes into account the kiddie tax, tax-free 529 disbursements, and the expense ratio of the UTMA and 529 investments (you provide that info). While not perfect, it's a good starting point for deciding between those two vehicles when dealing with a custodial account and may merit inclusion in the Wiki.
Interesting, the Vanguard UGMA/UTMA conversion calculator is not Vanguard's website. It's "powered by" Wealth Management Systems, Inc. The website redirects to DST Systems, a financial outsourcing company.

Put a few numbers into the calculator and hit "Calculate results". A comprehensive report and assumptions show up.

How accurate is this calculator? IOW, what is meant by "good enough as a quick and dirty comparison? If the calculator is useful, it can be put into the wiki. However, the limitations should be clearly documented.
I see two limitations--it assumes that all securities in a UTMA will be held until disbursement and does not factor in the ability to do tax gain harvesting along the way. The other limitation I see is that the calculator doesn't take into account state taxes which, depending on the state, could be a substantial drag on UTMA accounts.

User avatar
TD2626
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:40 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by TD2626 » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:40 pm

Should a wiki article briefly defining and describing bitcoin/cryptocurrency be created? Given the volume of discussion currently in the forum about it, it is surprising that there is no mention of it in the wiki. (I looked around but found nothing; my apologies if I missed something obvious).
Such an article could describe briefly and factually what cryptocurrency is, and what the technology behind it is (blockchain). The article would need to emphasize why it is a speculative and risky gamble not consistent with general Boglehead long-term investment principles.

Note: I feel that bitcoin/cryptocurrency is an excessively risky, speculative gamble that long-term investors should avoid. In my opinion, it is unsuitable for use as an investment or for inclusion in a long term portfolio – and it is inconsistent with Boglehead principles. (Also, I know little about this area and have little interest in it. Those with more knowledge could possibly write a more balanced article).

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:42 pm

I fully agree and have started a discussion here: Wiki article - Bitcoin
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
mrc
Posts: 934
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:39 am
Location: right here

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by mrc » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:13 am

I checked the wiki and found a short explanation of credit reports and a page for credit scores. Would a section/page on freezing credit (with an enumeration of all the reporting agencies) be helpful? I just found out about SageStream from another post.
A great challenge of life: Knowing enough to think you're doing it right, but not enough to know you're doing it wrong. — Neil deGrasse Tyson

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 39900
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:39 pm

Sure! I have created a draft wiki page and started a forum discussion here: Wiki article - Credit freeze
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Post Reply