Talk:United States Postal Service

Proposing Delivering for America subsection

Hello! I'm back on this Talk page to propose an all-new Delivering for America subsection. There's currently nothing in the article about DFA, a 10-year reform plan launched in March 2021. It includes a $40 billion capital investment and rather significant changes to USPS's operations, so I thought it might be worth covering at some length. I've put together a draft for this section and uploaded it to my user page. Link here.

Obviously, editors should closely review the text and the references, but just to give people a sense of what's included, I'll briefly summarize what the draft covers:

• Launch of program and USPS's stated intentions
• $40 billion capital investment
• New expedited parcel delivery services
• Expansion of USPS parcel-sorting capacity under DFA plan
• Planned construction of 60 large regional processing and distribution centers
• Budget deficit reduction through postage rate increases, operational reforms, and passage of the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022
• Measures USPS has taken to reduce employee turnover and stabilize its career workforce

I think this subsection would fit well at the bottom of the Operation and budget section, below the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail subsection. I've done my best to use solid sourcing and organize the information coherently, but as ever, I'm open to independent editor feedback. Happy to refine a passage, track down better sourcing, clarify language, etc. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan. It's a bit large and seems to include some unnecessary info that might not be considered WP:DUE....

"In March 2021, the Postal Service launched a 10-year reform plan called Delivering for America, intended to improve the agency's financial stability, service reliability, and operational efficiency. The plan includes $40 billion in investments meant to improve USPS technology and facilities.

As part of Delivering for America, the Postal Service introduced the USPS Connect offering in June 2022 and USPS Ground Advantage in July 2023. Together, these offerings have expanded expedited parcel shipping options for the agency's customers. Between Delivering for America's inception and September 2023, USPS installed 348 new package sorting machines within its facilities. As of September 2023, the Postal Service is able to process approximately 70 million packages per day, up from 53 million in 2021, and 60 million in 2022.

USPS announced in July 2022 that it would be building 60 new regional processing and distribution centers in order to replace smaller, redundant facilities. The first of these new facilities is a million-square foot building in Atlanta that, as of March 2023, is under construction.

In May 2023, the Postal Service announced that its Delivering for America initiatives had cut the agency's projected losses through 2031 from $160 billion to $70 billion. Losses are projected to go down due to postage rate increases, improved operational efficiency from the consolidation of its delivery network, and the passage Postal Service Reform Act of 2022, which lifted financial burdens placed on the Postal Service by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

Under the Delivering for America plan, USPS has focused on reducing employee turnover. The Postal Service has also sought to reduce its reliance on seasonal employees by stabilizing the size of its career workforce. Between October 2020 and September 2023, the Postal Service converted 150,000 of its pre-career workers into full-time employees."

I would suggest a shorter version, removing the parts in bold and restructuring a bit, in order to gather more support for this change. I would also use some attributions to avoid violating WP:VOICE. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I would add that when there is a request to add text to an article, that text needs to be posted verbatim on the article's talk page. COI edit requests should exist on the talk page as a permanent record of what has been requested to be added or deleted. Placing the requested text in a draft page that the COI editor ultimately controls does not satisfy this guideline. The only permanent record we have of the above request is a portion of the proposed text added by the reviewing editor as part of their review. Other than that, it is anybody's guess what is being proposed here, should the COI editor decide (however unlikely that may be) to delete their draft — an action which, because they control that draftspace — is something that remains in the realm of possibility. Concerns about the length of the the additions and heading formatting are easily handled with {{collapse}} and {{fake heading}} templates.

Notes

Regards,  Spintendo  19:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, DN! Thanks so much for the helpful feedback. I've taken your suggestions into account and reworked the section. Per another editor's feedback above, I'll put both my initial and the revised versions of the section draft here:

Delivering for America (initial version)

In March 2021, the Postal Service launched a 10-year reform plan called Delivering for America, intended to improve the agency's financial stability, service reliability, and operational efficiency. The plan includes $40 billion in investments meant to improve USPS technology and facilities. As part of Delivering for America, the Postal Service introduced the USPS Connect offering in June 2022 and USPS Ground Advantage in July 2023. Together, these offerings have expanded expedited parcel shipping options for the agency's customers. Between Delivering for America's inception and September 2023, USPS installed 348 new package sorting machines within its facilities. As of September 2023, the Postal Service is able to process approximately 70 million packages per day, up from 53 million in 2021, and 60 million in 2022. USPS announced in July 2022 that it would be building 60 new regional processing and distribution centers in order to replace smaller, redundant facilities. The first of these new facilities is a million-square foot building in Atlanta that, as of March 2023, is under construction. In May 2023, the Postal Service announced that its Delivering for America initiatives had cut the agency's projected losses through 2031 from $160 billion to $70 billion. Losses are projected to go down due to postage rate increases, improved operational efficiency from the consolidation of its delivery network, and the passage Postal Service Reform Act of 2022, which lifted financial burdens placed on the Postal Service by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Under the Delivering for America plan, USPS has focused on reducing employee turnover. The Postal Service has also sought to reduce its reliance on seasonal employees by stabilizing the size of its career workforce. Between October 2020 and September 2023, the Postal Service converted 150,000 of its pre-career workers into full-time employees. References

Delivering for America (revised version)

In March 2021, the Postal Service launched a 10-year reform plan called Delivering for America, intended to improve the agency's financial stability, service reliability, and operational efficiency. The plan includes $40 billion in investments meant to improve USPS technology and facilities. In April 2022, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 was signed into law. The bill was described by the Washington Post as a "key component of DeJoy’s 10-year plan for the Postal Service to avert a projected $160 billion loss over the next decade". It lifted financial burdens placed on the USPS by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. As part of Delivering for America, the Postal Service has introduced two new parcel shipping offerings: USPS Connect in June 2022 and USPS Ground Advantage in July 2023. It has also installed 348 new package sorting machines within its facilities. As of September 2023, the Postal Service is able to process approximately 70 million packages per day, up from 53 million in 2021, and 60 million in 2022. The USPS announced in July 2022 that it would be building 60 new regional processing and distribution centers in order to replace smaller, redundant facilities. In an effort to stabilize its workforce, the Postal Service converted 150,000 of its pre-career workers into full-time employees between October 2020 and September 2023. References

As you can see, I cut most of what you suggested. I see your point about the initial version being a little bit gratuitous. Two notes on specific changes:

• Per your attribution suggestion, I added a quote from a Washington Post article describing the Postal Service Reform Act as an important part of the DFA plan
• I condensed the passage on the Postal Service stabilizing its workforce. I realize my first crack at describing it was too long, but 150,000 part-time workers being moved into full-time positions feels significant enough to include. USPS employs about half a million people, so 150k is a large percentage of its workforce. I'll defer to you, since you're the indepedent editor, but I'm just asking that you reconsider the inclusion of that fact.

I'll now step aside and let DN, or any other independent editors, judge the revised draft. I hope what I've put together now fits the site's content guidelines, but if further changes need to be discussed, I'm available. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Without discussion of the negative aspects and criticism of DFA by postal unions, members of Congress, etc., this is irredeemably biased. --James (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to discuss negative aspects and criticisms, or add them, you are free to do so, but I think you may be expecting too much from a COI editor, to do it for you. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Complying with basic, fundamental precepts such as NPOV is not "expecting too much". It is expecting the bare minimum.--James (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

How is this violating NPOV? DN (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:COINOTBIAS? DN (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that you would go to that. I never said anything about conflict of interest. In fact, I would respond in the exact same way to an editor without a declared conflict of interest: Without discussion of the negative aspects, failures, and criticism of DFA by postal advocates, unions, commercial mailers, members of Congress, etc, such as the plan's inaccurate revenue forecasts, rate increases, lower mail volume, lack of profit, layoffs, lower QoL for postal employees, and postal facility closures, the proposed text is irredeemably biased. And if we're going to play the acronym game: WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:SYNTH, WP:COVERT, WP:PAYTALK, WP:COIRESPONSE, WP:COIPOLITICAL, see also WP:BOOSTER, WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE, WP:CPP.--James (^talk/_contribs) 13:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to "play a game". I simply asked you some genuine and fair questions without insinuation. Please do not assume I am just here to troll. The article seems to already mention those things, so if you would kindly explain how adding any of those proposed details would be a NPOV violation, I am all ears. DN (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to stay cordial and productive and try to avoid turning this into a BATTLE. DN (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you still looking at the (initial version) or (revised version)? They seemed to have made some significant improvements in the revised version, IMO. What do you think would make it more acceptable without rehashing the criticisms that are already in the article, or, would you prefer to copy edit those details and put them with the proposed addition? DN (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Rehashing" is an incorrect descriptor. Like Jonathan said, There's currently nothing in the article about DFA. Therefore, there is also currently nothing in the article about responses to DFA. Adding a new section describing a controversial political plan (written in PR-speak, to boot) without integrating response and criticism of the plan is not neutral. And yes, I am looking at the revised version. It is extremely telling, in my opinion, that the proposed text does not ever actually say what the plan is! (It is, among other things, raising rates, lowering service standards, layoffs, and closures.) Leaving aside the tactical omissions, here are some specific phrases and terms that are not neutral and/or insidiously promotional: "intended to improve the agency's financial stability, service reliability, and operational efficiency" (How? Be specific), "$40 billion in investments meant to improve USPS technology and facilities" (Improve how? Be specific. How does this number compare to past spending? Where is the funding coming from? Without context, this is just saying Big Number Good), associating PSRA with DFA (this is disputed), "installed 348 new package sorting machines within its facilities" (Over what time period? What, if anything, was removed and/or replaced in order to make way for these machines? Be specific. Without explaining the reasoning and context of these decisions, this is just Big New Shiny Thing Good), "smaller, redundant facilities" (self-evident), "in an effort to stabilize its workforce" (What does that even mean? Why no mention of the fact that most of these conversions came about due to union negotiations, not some mysterious "plan"?). Further reading: WP:NIF, WP:NOCRIT, WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:WTW. --James (^talk/_contribs) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate this explanation and now understand your argument much better than before. I'm unaware of sources referring to the DFA as a "controversial political plan" or that it "raises rates, lowers service standards, layoffs, and closures" etc... So I would request citations for that, as well as any other criticisms that you are suggesting. More attributions should help to resolve at least some of these concerns. I hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot, but for now I will just ping Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service and suggest that AGF be observed in working towards a consensus to include an acceptable version of the proposed addition. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I found a few sources that include some analysis and criticisms we can all perhaps agree on...

• govexec.com (DeJoy Promises His USPS Plan Will Still Deliver, Despite Disappointing Numbers So Far)
• GAO recommendations
• CBS (USPS proposes 5th postage hike since 2021 — a move critics call "unprecedented")
• FNN (DeJoy rebuffs USPS regulator considering more ‘proactive’ role in postal oversight)

Cheers... DN (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to both editors for weighing in on this request. I will take a step back and consider all the information presented in the discussion. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've now had time to think about how this section can be furter revised. Following DN's lead, I've used three of the four sources they suggested above, and done a little research of my own, to produce a section that's more balanced, and covers some of the drawbacks/criticisms of the Delivering for America plan. Please click the dropdown in order to view my revised section draft:

Delivering for America (futher revised version)

In March 2021, the Postal Service launched a 10-year reform plan called Delivering for America, intended to improve the agency's financial stability, service reliability, and operational efficiency. The plan includes $40 billion in investments meant to improve USPS technology and facilities. In April 2022, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 was signed into law. The bill was described by the Washington Post as a "key component of DeJoy’s 10-year plan for the Postal Service to avert a projected $160 billion loss over the next decade". It lifted financial burdens placed on the USPS by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. As part of Delivering for America, the Postal Service has introduced two new parcel shipping offerings: USPS Connect in June 2022 and USPS Ground Advantage in July 2023. It has also installed 348 new package sorting machines within its facilities. As of September 2023, the Postal Service is able to process approximately 70 million packages per day, up from 53 million in 2021, and 60 million in 2022. The USPS announced in July 2022 that it would be building 60 new regional processing and distribution centers in order to replace smaller, redundant facilities. One of the first of these facilities, a 700,000-square-foot building in Gastonia, North Carolina, opened in November 2023. In an effort to stabilize its workforce, the Postal Service converted 150,000 of its pre-career workers into full-time employees between October 2020 and September 2023. Delivering for America has attempted to stabilize the Postal Service's finances by adjusting service times for mail and package delivery. In 2020, the Postal Regulatory Commission gave the Postal Service increased authority to raise postage rates in order to cover its operating costs. Between 2021 and 2023, USPS has raised the postage rate four times. In May 2023, USPS reported a $2.5 billion loss over the year's first quarter, with approximately $500 million of that figure related to costs within the agency's control. It also reported that its projected ten-year losses had been reduced from $160 billion to $70 billion. References

I hope this addresses the concerns voiced by editors above. If anyone has additional feedback, please reach out and I'll do my best to address it. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have pinged James to see if they have any more input. I've been rather busy but I will try to give some feedback soon. DN (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it, DN! I'll be here if you, James, or any other independent editor has thoughts. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been dormant for a few months, so I thought I'd ping the thread. Reaching out to DN because they've demonstrated the most consistent interest but other editors are welcome to jump in as well. Happy to offer clarification on anything above for anybody who's new to the discussion. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I've added the Edit COI template to this request, to give it a wider reach. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service, could you summarize what exactly happened here? Is there no consensus on this edit yet? If so, I may have to close this as we can't have something so disputed the debate drags on for 8 months. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:AlphaBetaGamma, thanks for checking on this. There hasn't been any feedback on the most recent version of the draft I've proposed above. To attempt to summarize: An editor initially offered feedback on specifically what to remove from the original draft. Then, another editor argued that the manner in which I posted the edit request to the Talk page wasn't done correctly. I then came back and posted an updated draft incorporating feedback from both. A new editor entered the discussion to note they didn't believe the draft addressed the "negative aspects" of DfA, and two editors had a back-and-forth about the need for adding criticisms of the DfA plan, noting that since there is nothing in the article about DfA in the first place, there needs to be an even viewpoint of it represented. I updated the draft again to address these concerns, but since then, feedback has yet to be given.

Unfortunately, the two editors who provided the most feedback never returned to OK this version of the draft. I don't believe the overall request is disputed at this stage, more that it has received multiple rounds of feedback that have been addressed in the draft, and it is now waiting for re-review. I see that the COI edit queue has many unresolved requests, and this might've fallen by the wayside due to this. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@DN @James Allison, I'm reviewing old COI requests. My current inclination is to accept the latest revised draft - it isn't perfect and probably somewhat slanted against criticism of the plan, but I think it's an improvement over not having anything at all; I may also incorporate some additional criticism from the given sources. Tagging you both to let you weigh in before I do this, if you'd like to continue work on this I'm happy to step back. Rusalkii (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the "key component of DeJoy’s 10-year plan" sentence. Otherwise I have kept the "further revised" draft as written. Thank you for your patience! Rusalkii (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello user:Rusalkii, thank you so much for taking the time to evaluate this request and implement it into the article. I completely understand why you made that one minor alteration, and do appreciate your time here. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Automated Postal Centers edit request

Hi editors, I'm back with another edit request. This time, I'd like to update the Automated Postal Centers subsection. The section as it exists now is outdated both in title and content, as the APC name was phased out long ago, and some of the citations in the section are either broken or outdated.

Specifically, I've made the following changes:

• Removed the image of the Automated Postal Center. I'm currently working on uploading an image to Wikimedia Commons of a Self-Service Kiosk that I'll propose the addition of in a future edit request.
• Updated the Lunewsviews citation.
• Renamed the subsection to Self-Service Kiosks.
• Added that the USPS renamed APCs to Self-Service Kiosks in the early-2010s cited to a Brooklyn Eagle article.
• Updated the description of SSK, noting its ability to weigh and mail parcels, letters and flats, renew postal office boxes, and print postage, cited to articles from Linns Stamp News and the USPS.
• Removed the archived USPS citation as it is outdated information.
• Also added that the SSKs only accept debit and credit cards as forms of payment, and operate similarly to how ATMs function, cited to the USPS.
• Removed the final sentence of the subsection and its All Things Considered citation as it is a broken link, and the language reads as too promotional.
• Added statistics cited to the USPS regarding how many machines are in operation, and the exact amount of money they generated in 2023.

Please read below:

Self-Service Kiosk draft

Self-Service Kiosks In 2004, the USPS began deploying Automated Postal Centers (APCs) at USPS locations. In the early 2010s, the USPS renamed APCs to Self-Service Kiosks (SSKs). Self-Service Kiosks are automated and are able to weigh and mail parcels, letters and flats, renew postal office boxes, and print postage. SSKs only accept debit or credit cards as payment and function similarly to how an ATM operates for bank customers. As of 2023, there are 2,788 SSK machines in operation which generated $267.9 million in annual revenue. References

As a reminder, or for editors who may not have replied to my requests before, I'm an employee of the Postal Service and have a conflict of interest which is why I'm making this request.

If any editors have questions, please let me know, and I'll be standing by to respond. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Declined; content additions should generally be cited only to independent sources to avoid undue promotion and maintain encyclopedic neutrality. Left guide (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing feedback here user:Left guide. I would like to tag in a few editors who have been active on this Talk page in order to strike a consensus on the draft above: user:P,TO 19104 and user:STEMinfo.

If they too believe that using those USPS sources is a no-go, then I totally understand and have prepared a draft below which removes the USPS sources, including the sentences about the SSK financial figures as well as their functioning similar to an ATM. Please read below:

Self-Service Kiosks draft v2
Self-Service Kiosks In 2004, the USPS began deploying Automated Postal Centers (APCs) at USPS locations. In the early 2010s, the USPS renamed APCs to Self-Service Kiosks (SSKs). Self-Service Kiosks are automated and are able to weigh and mail parcels, letters and flats, renew postal office boxes, and print postage. References

If there are any further questions about this latest draft, please ping me and I will be available for a response. Again, I do thank you for your time in answering this request.Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done with the second draft. I have no objections to other uninvolved editors adding the additional content if they think it's useful. Personally I think it's a relatively reasonable WP:ABOUTSELF, but the page is already very long and I don't think this section needs that much detail. I've also kept the image until it can be replaced with the new one mentioned. Rusalkii (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for implementing this, as well as all the attention you've paid to the active requests on this Talk page. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Presidential Federal Sustainability Award Addition

Hi, I'm back here to propose a small edit request. In June 2024, the USPS was awarded the Presidential Federal Sustainability Award specifically for its sustainability efforts in creating a fleet of electric vehicles. I'd like to suggest the sentence be added at the bottom of the Electrifying the USPS fleet subsection, to update that section and reflect this recognition.

Please read here:

Presidential Federal Sustainability Award draft
In June 2024, the USPS was awarded the Presidential Federal Sustainability Award for building out one of the world’s largest electric delivery vehicle fleets. References

If any editors have questions, please let me know, and I'll be standing by to respond. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as a rule of thumb, I generally add awards or other recognition if they have their own Wikipedia article or substantive discussion in an article, which suggests that they're notable enough that including them is WP:DUEWEIGHT. Rusalkii (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding quickly to this request; I completely understand your concerns. I do believe it is notable that the Biden administration granted the USPS this Presidential award, so I've gone ahead and updated the proposed sentence to reflect that:

In June 2024, the USPS was awarded the Presidential Federal Sustainability Award by the Biden administration for building out one of the world’s largest electric delivery vehicle fleets.

Again, thank you for your time here, and let me know if this alteration makes sense. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi user:Rusalkii, I've gone ahead and posted an updated version of the edit request above, and added the COI template onto the request so it can be reviewed. Again, since the Biden administration granted the USPS this award, I believe it makes it notable enough to stand on its own and be added to the article. If there are any further questions on this please ping me and I'll be around to discuss. Thank you again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It being the Biden Administration was reasonably clear from it being the Presidential award, that doesn't really change my stance here. If anything I prefer the old version without that emphasis. I can leave this for another editor to take a look, though I think I'm currently the most active person working on COI edit requests so it may be a while again. Rusalkii (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Rusalkii's comments above. Axad12 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per above comments. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Kansas EV Addition

Hello editors, I'm here to post another short edit request. Before I get into the details, I want to note that I have a COI, which you can read more about on my user page here: User:Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service.

Just this month, the USPS deployed two new electric vehicles in Kansas, and the news was covered by the The Topeka Capital-Journal. Below I've drafted a sentence that covers this news and cites the TCJ report. Ideally, this sentence would be added to the bottom of the Fleet subsection.

Read here:

Kansas EV draft
In August 2024, the USPS deployed the first new vehicles from its fleet modernization project at its Topeka Sorting and Delivery Center in Kansas, including: an electric vehicle with higher clearance for routes delivering a high number of packages, and an electric delivery vehicle produced in partnership with Canoo that is a "pod-like" smaller van. References

Please reply if anybody has questions regarding this request, and I'll be ready to respond. Thank you. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Forwarding and holds section update

Hey everyone, I'm back again on this Talk page, this time to post an edit request to update the Forwarding and holds subsection of the article. As the section exists in the article now, it only has one citation, which is a broken link, and it doesn't mention the Premium forwarding service at all. And, since the subsection reads like it was ripped directly from the USPS site, I've drafted an updated section of the article. Below, you can read all of the changes I've made and the new citations I've added:

• Removed the existing USPS citation from the subsection as the link and the archived link are broken.
• Added a CNET citation to detail how forwarding mail works and what specific mail items will be forwarded.
• Added a follow-up sentence to explain further that the forwarding period can be extended if individuals pay an additional fee, cited to CNET.
• Introduced a sentence about Premium forwarding, cited to USA Today The New York Times, explaining how the service works.
• Cited Boston 25 News to add a sentence about the USPS offering holds for customers who don't want their mail delivered.
• Added a final sentence explaining that holds must be for at least three days and cannot exceed 30 days, cited to Boston 25 News and The New York Times.

Read here:

Forwarding and holds draft

Forwarding and holds Individuals who change their address can have their mail forwarded by the USPS to their new address for a small fee, with bills, letters, and invoices forwarded for one year and magazines and newsletters forwarded for 60 days. The length of the forwarding period can be extended for an additional fee. The USPS offers Premium forwarding, which instructs the USPS to forward your mail to a new address via weekly Priority Mail shipments for an initial fee and a weekly charge. The USPS also offers customers the ability to put their mail on hold. Holds must be for at least three days and cannot exceed 30 days. References

As always, I'll be ready to respond if editors have feedback. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Back on this thread to ping editors who've evaluated my requests in the past: User:Rusalkii and user:Likeanechointheforest. This is a short one, so hopefully it doesn't take up too much of your time. Thank you!Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely the Wikipedia article is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, rather than a comprehensive list of all services provided by the USPS. The location for this sort of thing is on the USPS's own website. Also, the independent sourcing here is clearly circular because the information obviously derives ultimately from the USPS's own website.

I must admit I do not see any reason for this sort of thing to be included on Wikipedia at all, so it would be a far better solution to remove the relevant text altogether rather than to spuriously source it with circular references. No one in their right mind is going to claim it is a shortcoming of this article if it doesn't cover this information. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this draft shouldn't be added to the page, as it feels promotional. That said, the USPS page is a high-importance article, and I think as such merits the level of info it has on it. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful feedback. For now, I'll let this one be Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Axad12's comment. Encoded  Talk 💬 10:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Employment section edit request

Hi, this is Jonathan from the USPS. I am here to post a new edit request, which will hopefully be quick and painless. This request has two parts. The first is that the employee statistics in the opening paragraph of the Employment section are outdated. Below is a new sentence I've drafted that ideally would replace the paragraph's second sentence reflecting the updated figures. The source I've used is USPS's Size and scope report, the same as the one that was cited previously, just updated to this year's figures:

As of 2023, it employed 525,469 career employees and 115,000 non-career personnel, divided among offices, processing centers, and actual post offices.

References

The second part of this request is that I noticed the final paragraph of the Employment section, which starts with "As more Americans send information via email," has no citations (outside of the final sentence, which I address below) and doesn't contain encyclopedic information. It reads like it was copied and pasted directly from a different website long ago.

I'm proposing that a non-COI editor remove this paragraph, minus the last sentence regarding job cuts back in 2009. That sentence seems important to keep since it's attached to a solid CNN citation. Still, it likely belongs in a separate part of the article, but I'll leave it up to editors who know best where specifically that is.

If any editors have thoughts about this proposed removal, please let me know, and I'll be around to respond. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back on this request to ping a few of the helpful editors who've been active on this page in the past: User:Likeanechointheforest, User:Axad12, and User:Rusalkii. If there's any feedback on this one, please let me know. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this suggestion, so I will add it.
Sheriff U3 talk 22:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA) Addition

Hello editors, I'm here again with an edit request to add a short overview about the legislation that passed in 2022, implementing major changes to the Postal Service's finances and operations. The 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA) is mentioned a couple of times within two different subsections on the page, in the context of the impact it has had but there's no overall explanation of the Act, which feels like an oversight given that it was the largest reform passed in decades.

Below I've drafted a few sentences that cover both the previous Acts and the PRSA and explains how this was a significant event for the Postal Service. I've written this as an addition to the History section, following on from the existing explanation of the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act, though the first sentence could be edited if editors think this would be better as its own subsection.

Read here:

Postal Service Reform Act

Among the changes from the Postal Reorganization Act, a key aspect was the requirement for the USPS to be self-financing, which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service. The next major legislation affecting the service, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, was passed in 2006. This act limited the services that the Postal Service could offer to only those it already provided and also established a requirement for the USPS to save money for the medical benefits of future retirees. The Act set a goal to save $5 billion per year for the first 10 years of a 50-year schedule, however within 6 years the Postal Service began to default on its payments. The Postal Service experienced lower revenues as mail use declined in the 2010s, and it sought financial reforms from Congress, however no new legislation was passed until the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA). The PSRA was signed into law in April 2022. It forgave $57 billion in Postal Service debt and released it from the obligation to set aside funds for future retirees' healthcare, as well as adding requirements for delivery timing and reporting on performance metrics, and allowing the Postal Service to offer some non-mail services. References

I'll be standing by for any questions about this request. Thank you. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is ok to add, but please take the advice of other editors.
Sheriff U3 talk 22:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service" should not be included without a citation. McYeee (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this request, User:McYeee. That sentence is supported by the USA Today source, which discusses that issue as follows: "When the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 became law, it required the postal service to serve all Americans while also breaking even. "It basically introduced an identity crisis that had very real consequences for USPS's operations ever since: is it a business or is it a service?" said Porter McConnell, co-founder of the Save the Post Office Coalition." Does this help verifying that phrase? Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable summary of a portion of that article. USA Today seems to agree with Porter McConnell. Please cite it inline. McYeee (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, but I would like that a more experienced editor will do the edit Synonimany (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this is WP:DUE. In particular, the USPS comes off as blameless; but this might be because they mostly are. Someone else should take a look. McYeee (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback User:McYeee, I went back into the draft and added the citation where it was requested. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the content currently in the "Retirement funding and payment defaults" section seems to say why the law was put in place, could this be included with the proposed text? Encoded  Talk 💬 08:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback User:Encoded, I’ll look into incorporating details from that section. Is there a specific aspect from that section you feel should be added? Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing specific to be honest, just anything that may be relevant for the specific law such as funding issues, etc. I'm not too familiar with USPS myself so unfortunately am not sure what exactly to suggest. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on the feedback from User:Encoded, I have refreshed the drafted details about the PSRA to add in a summarized version of details from the Retirement funding and payment defaults section. Here is that updated draft:

Postal Service Reform Act v2

Among the changes from the Postal Reorganization Act, a key aspect was the requirement for the USPS to be self-financing, which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service. The next major legislation affecting the service, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, was passed in 2006. This act limited the services that the Postal Service could offer to only those it already provided and also established a requirement for the USPS to save money for the medical benefits of future retirees. The Act set a goal to save $5 billion per year for the first 10 years of a 50-year schedule, however within 6 years the Postal Service began to default on its payments. The Postal Service experienced lower revenues as mail use declined in the 2010s. In 2012, in order to be able to meet obligations for payroll and continuing its operations, the Postal Service defaulted on payments due for retirements benefits in August and again in September that year. In September 2014, it defaulted on the payments for the fourth time, and continued to default into 2017. The Postal Service sought financial reforms from Congress for relief from the funding obligation and debt from the defaults. Legislation was introduced in Congress in 2016 as well as in 2019, aiming to remove the benefits funding obligations, however no new legislation was passed until the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA). The PSRA was signed into law in April 2022. It forgave $57 billion in Postal Service debt and released it from the obligation to set aside funds for future retirees' healthcare, as well as adding requirements for delivery timing and reporting on performance metrics, and allowing the Postal Service to offer some non-mail services. References

Is this what you had in mind, Encoded? If so, is it ready to be added to the History? If there's any further feedback, please let me know. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Each of the first three sentences of your proposed addition needs a citation. McYeee (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service I do think this is improved, but as McYeee commented do you have any sources for the first three sentences? Thanks! Encoded  Talk 💬 09:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback User:McYeee and User:Encoded. I went back into the draft and added the citations to the first few sentences where they were requested, utilizing the very helpful USA Today source.

Please read below:

Postal Service Reform Act v3

Among the changes from the Postal Reorganization Act, a key aspect was the requirement for the USPS to be self-financing, which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service. The next major legislation affecting the service, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, was passed in 2006. This act limited the services that the Postal Service could offer to only those it already provided and also established a requirement for the USPS to save money for the medical benefits of future retirees. The Act set a goal to save $5 billion per year for the first 10 years of a 50-year schedule, however within 6 years the Postal Service began to default on its payments. The Postal Service experienced lower revenues as mail use declined in the 2010s. In 2012, in order to be able to meet obligations for payroll and continuing its operations, the Postal Service defaulted on payments due for retirements benefits in August and again in September that year. In September 2014, it defaulted on the payments for the fourth time, and continued to default into 2017. The Postal Service sought financial reforms from Congress for relief from the funding obligation and debt from the defaults. Legislation was introduced in Congress in 2016 as well as in 2019, aiming to remove the benefits funding obligations, however no new legislation was passed until the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA). The PSRA was signed into law in April 2022. It forgave $57 billion in Postal Service debt and released it from the obligation to set aside funds for future retirees' healthcare, as well as adding requirements for delivery timing and reporting on performance metrics, and allowing the Postal Service to offer some non-mail services. References

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for this draft. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I'm going to hold off adding it so that other editors who've previously been in this conversation can have a look first. (Pinging @McYeee) Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 23:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. McYeee (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything is cited and there are multiple sources. Looks good. Synonimany (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)