Talk:United States Postal Service/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Vandalism?

This article states: "One of these ways is to ride the backs of city carriers and try and make them hurry,hurry,hurry to save some management positions that are not needed.To save the tree you have to cut the dead weight off of the branches . Instead they want to kill the roots which is the letter carriers." What the? This sounds like personal opinion at the very least - probably better classified as vandalism. From this customer's point of view, it also would appear to be false - having waited over 100 days for parcels to be delivered from Atlanta to Birmingham (a distance of what 140 miles?), one can hardly claim any "hurry,hurry,hurry" is being exhibited by the USPS in general. One wonders how with such ridiculous service (indeed when complaining about the delays in package delivery, this customer was told that the USPS HAS no delivery standards that have to be met), the USPS can be running a steady deficit (they certainly aren't spending money to provide service) compared to their competitors (UPS, FEDEX, etc.) who often charge less for infinitely better service and still make a profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Needed

This article seems extremely one-sided. Certainly there are critics out there who can be quoted. The "Monopoly" section in particular offers only the briefest reference to people who think maybe things should be different. The rest of the section repeatedly states that "changes are not needed" -- every time a statement by one of the USPS leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.209.61 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


If you can dig up reliable sources for those claimed problems and for that Obama statement, you'll be well on your way to adding a useful Criticism section. --CliffC (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Criticism Needed

The mention in this article of Postal Inspectors engaging in anti-competitive behavior may be factually true, but as far as I can tell, there are no other mentions of this incident other than on the American Enterprise Institute website, a partisan think tank. I think that this section should be removed pending further investigation and verification.

--71.242.157.18 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)JonesHarrimanIII


Junk Mail/Do Not Mail List Controversy

A quick google search reveals that the USPS has apparently consistently opposed a national "Do Not Mail" list or efforts akin to Canada's "No Junk Mail Please" stickers. Main article could use mention of this in the Environmental section or its own section right after it, as ~50% of all junk mail goes straight to the trash/landfill/recycling, not to mention the cumulative economic loss from taking a few seconds or minutes out of the lives of ~100-200 million people every day. Why does the USPS like junk mail? Because it makes money and lets them keep more workers around, as far as I can tell. Parl2001 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The other side of the issue, for a balanced comment, is that so-called "junk" mail generates business for many companies (and as such is part of the semi-sacred entrepreneurial spirit) and also is used extensively by charities and in elections. Also, you apparently can "opt out" of U.S. junk mail. See Advertising mail#Opting out. Ecphora (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliability?

I would like to see something in this page about the reliability of USPS. Have there been any studies done? What percent of mail is undelivered? I cannot find this information anywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.150.253.55 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


I would like to see that, too. Having mailed letters and packages of varying weights to domestic and international locations over many years using USPS, and not one ever getting lost or delivered late (well, one package was late, but because of French customs), I would speculate they are very much reliable, as much as if not more than FedEx, UPS, or DHL. 72.49.126.33 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)JAK


Also would like to see that. The article for Royal Mail cites that the UK's system is held to be unreliable, with a 99.6% completion rate. 99.6% sounds good at first glance, until you realize that about one in 200 of your packages won't make it to its destination. I think USPS is more reliable. 152.3.8.235 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On-time performance for First Class Mail is in the 2008 annual report [1], but I don't see stats about mail that has gone missing. Perhaps when all mail pieces are individually trackable they will have a better idea, though IBM (the consultant they hired to monitor performance) probably has stats on test mailings that were never delivered. -- Beland (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

EDITORS PLEASE NOTE

I'm trying to add references and before I even finish typing, the information that has already been removed. Give the person who writes the addition chance to correct their reference mistake before you remove their entire entry. Not everyone who contributes - be it new and veteran know it all - wants to take the time to research factual info so that someone can come in an instant and erase their work. Please be considerate.

There was information about pivoting city carriers, the distinction between the two, the job posiitons of managers and supervisors and a list of postal killings attributed to the violent section that were ALL factual.


[changes]

I am a USPS employee. I am not much of an author, nor am I a WP expert (so this is probably in the wrong place and horridly formatted, feel free to fix it), but there have been a lot of changes since the 'sorting mail' section was written. For one, the MLOCR's have almost been entirely phased out and their function is now done by DIOSS machines, which are similar to DBCS machines but have the ability to perform OCR function, as well as take images and spray ID tags on the back of pieces (for mail with addresses that cannot be read by the OCR software), as well as spray barcodes on the front. Also, the article seems to give no mention of DPS, which is a set of sort programs that take local mail (letters only, although the PO is evaluating machines that will do this with flats) and put it in walking (or driving) order for carriers to deliver. There are also lots of other changes, as well as machinery and equipment about which there probably isnt much public information, including the LCTS, APPS, RCS, FSM-100, and FSM-100-AI. There is also the entire PARS system, which is is quite interesting: http://lunewsviews.com/automation/pars.htm 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.197.119 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

pictures of post offices

could we get some pictures of post offices in rural Alaska?--Ted-m (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing information on free-matter

I don't know enough about it to contribute necessarily, but I do know that there exists a service fromt he post office for the completely free delivery of materials for blind people. Don't know for sure the real name of it, but it's something along the lines of "free matter for the blind" and I hear it referred to as "free-matter". It's a fairly slow service, depending on volume. It's used to transport things like Braille versions of books/textbooks/etc, Braille writers, and various other assistive technologies for the blind. Sharprs (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a USPS employee, and would like to state the following about "free matter for the blind" mail. It is a free service provided, and is maily used by Libraries to carry cassettes, CDs, and the recording devices. Sometime they also mail out information to the reciepiant under this service. Most of this mail is sorted into two different catagories. The first catagory is where local mail is sorted, all of that mail that's not letters or flats is sorted as priority delivery to prompt next day delivery to its destination. For anything beyond local delivery, it is treated as 'first class' mail, and can take 1-3 days of delivery. However, almost all "free matter for the blind" mail is sorted with local, at least where I work in St. Petersburg. This website here has a reposting of how free matter for the blind mail works. http://www.nfb.org/nfb/free_matter.asp. 72.185.33.199 (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

History

It could use some more about the history of the pre-continental post office system set up for the colonies. Did that last until Benjamin Franklin reorganized it into the new department, or did he create an entirely new system where none had existed for some time? --70.143.54.7 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Media Mail

Does anyone know why Media Mail exists, and when it was originally implemented? The rates and classifications of mail are explained, but there is less information on the history and motivations behind the way the modern classifications are structured. Justinkrivers (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Money Order ATM claim

I removed the following text:

Postal Money Orders have also become the victim of a high counterfeit rate, because of this many bank ATM machines will not accept automatic deposits for them, only tellers can accept them for deposit.

I don't see how an ATM would know the difference between a check and a post office money order, nor could I find any evidence online that this is the case. If anyone can find a reference demonstrating the contrary, feel free to restore this claim to the article. -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

People aren't buying money orders at the US Postal Office anymore like they used, they want too much money for them as the USPS, go to Wal-Mart and people order them in there all day long yet I don't like Wal-Mart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Environmental record

There's even more details on various "green" initiatives in the 2008 comprehensive statement (p. 47, 49, etc., but lots of companies are engaged in such practices. Are they really notable in this case, or is this just USPS PR? It would also be prudent to balance this section with discussion of the environmental impact of mailing vs. using e-mail or the phone. What is the position of the USPS on this issue (which is driving down mail volume) and what is the position of environmental advocates?

There are also over 38,000 E-85 capable vehicles, but it is unclear how many of them are actually using E85 instead of gasoline. [2] That page mentions pilot programs with hybrid and electric vehicles. -- Beland (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Federal Agencies are mandated by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), Executive Order 13423, and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) to purchase alternative fuel vehicles, increase consumption of alternative fuels, and to reduce petroleum consumption. Federal fleets are required to obtain 75 percent of their light-duty annual acquisitions as AFVs in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). [3]EnterpriseCentral (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The Flex Fuel Vehicles, purchased from 1998 to 2003, ended up decreasing overall fleet fuel efficiency by 29% and increasing gasoline consumption by 1.5 million gallons, according to a USPS study.[4] The study suggests that flex-fuel vehicles would only be deployed where E85 is conveniently available and competitively priced. The study also said the price of E85 must be 30% less than gasoline to be cost effective.EnterpriseCentral (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The Postal Service has explored alternative fuel technology for many years. In the latest endevours , the T3, a three-wheel electric delivery vehicle (made by T3 Motion, Inc.), is currently being tested in FL, AZ and CA. The latest generation of a 2-ton hybrid electric van is currently being tested in Long Island (NY) and will join 30 other pure electric vans delivering mail in Manhattan and the Bronx. The use of hybrid electric vehicles and other alternative fuel technologies, along with reducing the size of its fleet, will help to meet the goal of reducing fuel usage by 20 percent over the next five years. As part of a vehicle purchase by the General Services Administration (GSA) in FY 2009, the Postal Service began one-for-one replacements of 6,500 vehicles with 1,000 E-85 ethanol-capable and 900 hybrid gasoline/electric vehicles. The balance of the GSA purchase will be fuel-efficient, four-cylinder vehicles. [5]EnterpriseCentral (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
They are also expanding in-lobby recycling bins for PO Box customers. [6] -- Beland (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I found a newly created article referring to the recycling bins found in the post office. I'm suggesting that article be merged with the Environmental record section. --Rent A Troop (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to fine some lost mail

Hello my Name is Elfido Medina and I put 8 letters in in the mail box at Van Nuys Blvd and Plumer st and 6 letters where delivered but 2 where Lost and I am sure that there where 8 letters and the 2 that where lost are to Number 1 is First Premier Bank and the next one is to the Department of Veterans Affairs and they where both bills and the Date I put them in the Mail box Okay and Thank you Sincerely Elfido Medina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.67.211 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot help you with lost mail. However, your entry here does reveal a problem with the USPS article, because there is no mention of the word "complaints" in the article, or how to complain about any delivery problems. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(It's "find" not "fine")

There really should be a criticisms section here. For instance, why is there a tracking feature on the USPS website when "tracking is not required"? It should be. It is for FedEx and UPS. What makes you so special? USPS frequently loses packages and then tells someone that they update tracking as a "courtesy" so anyone waiting on a package doesn't know if it's been lost yet again or if it's moving slow and nobody's cared enough to scan it in 8 days. Calling them doesn't help either. They just repeat "we don't have to scan it" a few times until you hang up out of frustration. Basically, there is no accountability with them and tracking and customer service are pointless to use because they don't care. A criticisms section is absolutely in order. Who do these people answer to, anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.60.228 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken Link

This link, used as this page's 45'th source, is broken. I'm sure the information is located elsewhere on the site. --63.65.152.46 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is USPS a corporation or not?

The article currently contradicts itself on this question: "The United States Postal Service (USPS) is a Government Corporation of the United States" "But the USPS is not a corporation." --068HwZiM (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article was vandalized five days ago. I just fixed it. Thanks for catching that! --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Financial performance for USPS

Recently, I ran across a comment, to a news article elsewhere, that the USPS stands out as an example of the ineptitude of the US Federal Government in it's ability to provide a functional agency that isn't replete with waste and continuously losing tax payers money. I was of the opinion that USPS has been substantially self supporting and functioning well in competition with other carries like UPS and FedEx. It would be nice, so see a section that addresses the basic financials of the US Postal Service, how they fund their operations, how well they balance their expenses against income, and how well they perform as a government agency within the free market economy.

The financial data is available from the USPS so that is not a problem. The problem is, as with all financial information, that there are the unfortunate nuances to accounting which often require qualifications.

I think that this line of information would serve the general public well as the financial aspect of the USPS is as significantly important as is it's quality of product.

I would, if I felt confident in my abilities, help in this endevour but I am only capable, as a graduate, to gather facts and understand well formed opinions rather than actually publish well formed opinions myself. This I have to leave to the professionals.

So far as I can tell, given the financial history published by the USPS, the financial performance is reasonably on par with most companies in the free market. While the USPS does show years of losses, it also shows years of profits. In aggregate, since the early '90s, the average financial balance has been positive as they adjust their product and workforce to the changing economic conditions. On the other hand, it would require a better understanding of the balance sheet to interpret the effect of the government allotments received by the USPS. I have yet to find a credible source to explain how this allotment applies to the net operating profit and loss. I also am stuck on the question as to whether this can be reasonably accounted for as an offset to the requirements that the USPS provides services that UPS and FedEx finds no profit in.

I hope that others find this relevent to Wikipedia's encyclopedic information.

Thanks,

Dogsinlove (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC) dogsinlove 09/11/2009

Monopoly Status

This section is very confusing and seems likely untrue I am unaware of any law saying that someone can't open a message delivery service. Especially since there are several of them in existence. If someone can show me one I'd love to see it. As far as I can tell the only thing that makes it a "monopoly" is the fact that competitors are not allowed to use the mail boxes, but nothing is stopping them from delivering mail97.91.175.129 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The whole section appears to have been cited poorly. The citations needed tag has been added to the appropriate sentence, and the refimprove tag has been added to the section as a whole. I find it surprising that it has been two years since the prior comment and no changes have been made. If no arguments are made in support of the 'congressional monopoly' statements and/or no citations are added, the relevant statements will be stricken from the section in the coming weeks. 108.206.153.15 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Federal funding

The question of the post office being self-sufficient is not nearly as clear-cut as this wiki article suggests. It claims "the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s." According to the USPS itself, it receives $100 million per year: http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/ESS-WP-09-001.pdf (in the section "Annual Appropriations to the Postal Service"). While a small amount compared to its total budget, none the less the statement in the wiki article is factually incorrect.

Also, any mail requiring postage that is sent by the federal government itself is necessarily using tax dollars - an indirect form of tax-payer funding for the agency.

There is further a hidden tax in postage, in which the federal government has mandated the post office must contribute out of its revenues funds for reducing general federal budget deficits, even though the post office is an off-budget agency. This is an increased expense to the post office that would necessarily come out of postage paid by users of their services. Congress uses the post office in this way to avoid an explicit tax increase or reduction in spending, but it is still a cost the government imposes on the agency that gets passed on to taxpayers. It is as if it were a tax imposed by Congress, without their having to admit to the public that they raised taxes.

There are very likely other hidden ways in which taxpayer dollars are used to fund the post office, directly or indirectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sststr (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The above points, and the previous talk section related to the funding streams for the USPS should be explored and added to the page. In the meantime, the edit from 05:51 31 Dec. 2009 has been reverted (was: The USPS has received numerous government bailouts which are taxpayers' dollars.[citation needed] ) as verifiable content is needed on this site (and no citation was added for 5 days). (Note that I'm not trying to attribute that edit to you Sststr, just noting that it's related to the issue.)

Incidentally, the USD$100M you mention is funding for mandated free mail service for the blind and similar services, as stated in the document you linked. Velowiki (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

unspecified stamp rate on stamp

where do I find pictures of USPS stamps? I have a lot of old stamps which do not have price on stamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.116.220 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

With US Postal Service closing it's Saturdays and raising the price again, it will only create more people to us Bill Pay http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/postal-service-fiscal-crisis/2010/03/02/id/351434

To save the USPS is to lower the stamp cost not increasing, that will create less interest with people to use USPS and go with online payment options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Census discussion moot, irrelevant

The section describes a proposal that went nowhere (can cite if need be), and a two month-old importance tag remains unanswered. Any reason not to simply remove this? Uberhill 21:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Citation for cause of mail volume decline

(forgive me if I'm not formatting this right -- first time wikipedia user, here.) It says that the reason for decline in postal mail is "due to email". This is an unverified claim, with no citation to prove or support that this is the case. It's the "company line" where the post office is concerned, but nothing I've found verifies that rising volumes of email has decreased need or usage of postal mail. I HAVE found anecdotal evidence that rising postage costs and bad service have turned individual users away, but this is, as I said, anecdotal and not an official datasource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.2.205 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Government owned corporation or not?

The article's infobox says that the USPS is a government owned corporation, but later on the article says it is not. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.64.222 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Article was clearly vandalized on 16 April 2011, but no one caught it. (The edit was clearly in bad faith because the U.S. Supreme Court already resolved this issue six years ago, as noted in the article.) I've fixed it. Thanks for spotting that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You'll want to fix the "can't be sued for antitrust" bit then, since the cited case states fairly clearly that it can. --76.14.126.94 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you didn't read the opinion by Justice Kennedy for a unanimous court: "We granted certiorari to consider the question whether the United States Postal Service is a "person" amenable to suit under the controlling antitrust statute. 538 U. S. 1056 (2003). We hold it is not subject to antitrust liability, and we reverse." What part of that do you not understand? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Set me free

There appears to be a contradiction between pages on when free delivery began in cities. This page says 1863; this page suggests 1858 ("33 years before" 1891). Which is it? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

distinction between USPO and USPS

No distinction is being made between the United states Post Office and the United States Postal Service -- two distinctly different separate and dissimilasr agencies that did not share a historical period. I propose to break out all USPS and USPO materials into separate articles. Comments? 76.91.14.191 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC) (User:Pedant , not logged in)

Cite notes

I just noticed that citation number 50 (https://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/cs08/chpt1_pg5.htm) comes back with a 404 error. This citation should be removed.

Citation number 61 (https://www.usps.com/financials/) is also a 404

Citation number 173 should be: (http://faq.usps.com/adaptivedesktop/faq.jsp?ef=USPSFAQ&type=Global&iid=35a36559-fb39-44a9-851e-4665246a5166&selectedTitle=Is%20there%20Mail%20Service%) Retrieved December 10, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.215.104 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to add USPS First-Class package & Priority Mail

Idk where those 2 are. And Parcel post is discontinued and repleaced by Standard Post & Parcel Select

68.238.254.167 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Service level guarantees

It might be good to add a section describing the guarantees, if any, that are provided by the USPS.

usps.com vs usps.gov

Not sure how important the distinction between .com and .gov is, but...

The official website of the United States Postal Service is usps.com

and Internet Explorer redirects usps.gov to a search engine's search results for usps.gov

however, the FAQs page of usps.com answer for "How Much Does First-Class Mail® Cost?" includes a link to a Postage Price Calculator at http://postcalc.usps.gov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.62.229 (talk • contribs) 72.85.62.229

Not for me, usps.gov redirects to usps.com and the FAQ question remains at http://postcalc.usps.com. It must just be a Mircosoft-centric quirk. ww2censor (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The Postal Service considers usps.com its commercial domain, and usps.gov its internal domain. Basically, usps.com is for customers, usps.gov is for employees and policy pages. The domain is interchangeable for some apps. Mamyles (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential NPPOV wording problem?

This section's text seems a little loaded in this excerpt:

The USPIS has the power to enforce the USPS monopoly by conducting search and seizure raids on entities they suspect of sending non-urgent mail through overnight delivery competitors. According to the American Enterprise Institute, a private conservative think tank, the USPIS raided Equifax offices in 1993 to ascertain if the mail they were sending through Federal Express was truly "extremely urgent." It was found that the mail was not, and Equifax was fined $30,000.

My area of particular concern was "enforce the USPS monopoly". Particularly concerned at calling it "the" monopoly. It might be worth while checking the sources for reliability as well.

Puppier (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Statistics overload

This article looks like a huge jumble of statistics. There are literally hundreds of numbers strewn throughout the text, and well over half of them are years outdated. I've tried to do some updating of essential statistics, but there are still many that seem unnecessary. Do we really need numbers like how much it costs to deliver per point, cost to mail various letters, maximum size/weight of letters, or how many employees were lost in 2001? Mamyles (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

USPS is actually a government corporation

I just want to throw it out there that the USPS is not actually an independent agency, but is apparently a government corporation. This is per my textbook American Government: Your Voice, Your Future by Matthew R. Kerbel, 5th Edition. 75.111.71.113 (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Alex 07/21/2015

Unfortunately that is not quite accurate. Even a very recent official SEC document (page 15) describes it as: “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States which is NOT a government corporation. Also check out the Postal Reorganization Act in 1971" as well as the fourth paragraph of this webpage. ww2censor (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not all sources are always correct. Many other book sources correctly state that the USPS is an independent agency, such as page 218 of Litigation with the Federal Government by Gregory C Sisk. Mamyles (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 43 external links on United States Postal Service. 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 08:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Advertisements

It would be nice to have the ads in the page removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunterRoe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@HunterRoe: What content, specifically, are you referring to? Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Postal Service. 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.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Postal Service. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 17:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 30 external links on United States Postal Service. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Remote Encoding Centers

As of 2013, the Wichita, KS REC was closed, making the Salt Lake City, UT center the last REC still open in the country. 2601:681:4D04:2C91:70F1:59BE:49A:75BF (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Postal Service. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 13:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Connected contributor

KDS4444 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "Part Use"

At the end of the third paragraph, the last sentence states that "The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked 'U.S. Mail' and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private package delivery services, such as the United Parcel Service (UPS) and has part use with FedEx Express." What does it mean to "have part use," in this context? Thanks, Tony Tan · talk 04:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg. Marchjuly (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States Postal Service. 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) 01:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Postal Service. 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) 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Postal Service. 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.

checkY 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) 06:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file FDA and the International Mail Facilities (IMFs) (40219698104).jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mailbox key

I lost my mailbox key Tammy Krivac (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge with United States Post Office Department

The USPS article, as it currently stands, describes the history of the post office system in the US from its inception, much of it being about the former United States Post Office Department. The USPOD article is very brief, and it just has an infobox and four paragraphs. Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose: the two are entirely different entities, one being a government department and the other an independent agency. It is true the POD article could do with expansion. Indeed much of the USPS history section could be moved there because that is the more appropriate place and USPS does not require such a detailed history section, especially as it less than 50 years old. That section could easily be reduced significantly, probably to 3 or 4 paragraphs. ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per ww2censor above, the two cannot be compared directly; one is a U.S. Cabinet department and the other its own entity. I also agree that parts of the History section could possibly be seperated to be put in the United States Post Office Department article. Gazamp (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Post Service Department was a cabinet level department, completely separate from the current USPS, the way I see it, for historical purposes, they should remain separate.--Navarre0107 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the merger of the two articles. Each phase US Mail delivery is quite different, with different laws in force. —Prairieplant (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ww2censor hit the nail on the head. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ww2censor. The movement of the material from this article to the P.O. Dept. article is appropriate and a reasonable solution. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Resolved

Where is the history?

There is only one paragraph of history. Why not a complete history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.157.131 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

USPS was only formed in 1971. So, by way of introduction, there is a one paragraph précis because it has no substantial history but did you miss the text immediately under the header? "Further information: United States Post Office Department" because that's where there is a detailed history pre-1971. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Postal Service may close non-distribution centers?

Why?! The United States Postal Service and the Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe has stated the agency will shutdown processing and main non-distribution centers to facility operations in main zip code distribution centers in order of binding the unity of the United States Postal Service by the form of a facilitated distribution center for each state due to first-class mail, which has dropped 25 percent since 2006(reports from the USPS Anaylses). The initiative will result in the shutdown for the first-class mail now delivered overnight would take two to three days to arrive regardless of origin or destination. The hospitals, museums , schools, churches, and other groups that use bulk mail could see an increase in their rates, while others might see a decrease in bulk mail rates, thus a decrease in many employed classes of the United States Postal Service and to dis-facilitate and lower the values for the families of the majority of employees in the service of non-distribution centers. There is no target date for the move, but the Postal Service will honor a May 15 moratorium on closures based on its agreement with the United States Congress. The Congress has already started this problem and now someone would think they would pay the amount of debt from the money left over from the Iraqi and Afghan war, which may be a possible solution. The moratorium is intended to give Congress time to come up with an alternative plan to stop the huge financial losses the Postal Service has been experiencing because of reductions in the amount of first-class mail over the years. Now there is a proposal about a new bill to renew an act to discontinue the function of a new law to distransfer of non-distribution centers to a maintained distribution center, to re-allow this new act is to maintain an independent and operated Postal Service agency as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States to ensure the rights and regulations of mail transportation and United States Postal facilities in services for all distribution zip code centers and non-distribution zip-code centers in the United States. I am surprised this information is not on the article. --74.84.112.56 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:CRYSTAL BALL nor a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. When this happens, if ever, it can be added if it add some encyclopaedic value to the article. ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Violence as 'going postal'

I think there was an episode in Married, with Children, where Al Bundy and his friends went to D.C. and witnessed a shooting involving an armed mailman. Maybe someone could add this to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.14.206 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Need for Major Revisions

  • Article is really long with lots of detailed information not necessary for a general overview of post office.
  • Red arrows in the infobox convey the political message that the post office is 'losing money' -- this idea is actually controversial and contested, and has been identified as part of some really targeted political propaganda.
  • Anyone think there should be a separate page for post office closures controversy? It's a big union issue, some say it violates the constitution; concretely could be one of the biggest changes in history for this institution.
  • Substantial things like budget, delivery, & employment need more focus -- relative to overly technical 'choices' section
  • Postal unions probably deserve more coverage

I'm interested in hearing from any/all active editors—particularly interested in hearing about the february collb. Thanks. Groupuscule (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: USPS is not a "company"! The use of the company infobox is a political decision that, frankly, seems to anticipate that the whole government will be handed over to the private sector. But today, USPS is still a government agency mandated by the constitution. You don't see a company infobox with little red "losing money" arrows for the military or the for the EPA! Groupuscule (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is too long. I also disagree that the post office is not losing money---otherwise, the USPS wouldn't be trying to close a huge number of facilities and terminate Saturday service. But I do agree that the current infobox is improper because USPS is actually a government agency. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, about to change the infobox. Coolcaeser, that's exactly what I used to think. I know the talk page is not the place to have a big political discussion, but there are politics involved in the facts here. The USPS actually is a very profitable government agency, but has been forced to put aside huge amounts of money each year for a retirement fund extending 70 years into the future. This is a requirement that no other agency, public or private, has to comply with. If USPS didn't have to put money into this fund, it would be turning a profit—it is actually profitable, which is why corporate interests want to privatize it! Check out: Democracy Now, Salon. These are generally 'left-leaning' sources, and we obviously need to do our own work and make up our own minds. But it's a really important point to be aware of. Please let me know what you think—I'm interested in challenging my own beliefs on this position. I'll go ahead and change the infobox. Groupuscule (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Major Changes Coming

Hello,

I am working on updating a lot of the information on the USPS wiki with relevant information as it is today and will be moving older stuff to the history section as sub-headings. I am working to make this as current as possible since it is listed as a lvl 5 article. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know.

Full Transparency - I am a letter carrier for USPS, however, all guidelines will be followed.

Galendalia (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I've removed your entire section on COVID-19. While certainly helpful information, it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, especially taking up about a quarter of the article space, which puts far FAR too much undue emphasis on a recent and transitive phenomena. See Wikipedia's guidelines on recentism and that Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks! 73.254.89.77 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are incorrect as it is leading to other parts of the article. You should read and understand the recentism post in its entirety to understand what is being working towards and consult people in the chat before taking it upon yourself to delete an impactful and important section of this wiki as it relates to the financial security of the USPS. Galendalia (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Uh... No. It's a pamphlet of what USPS is doing in response to the pandemic and temporary policy changes. To wit:
If the carrier feels you have the virus, they have the option to report your address to the supervisor and/or union which will cause a temporary stop or other arrangements to get your mail to you. You will be notified by a supervisor of any actions taken. Who is "you" and "your" here? This section is clearly talking to USPS customers about their mail and is not talking about USPS as an encyclopedic entity. Wikipedia is not a FAQ or a guide.
Again, while interesting and useful information, it's simply a limited-time news item and has no lasting relevance to the article. Also, it's length and its position in the article gives it considerable undue weight. Every company and public service in the world is impacted by this pandemic in some way. We're not about to add 5000-character sections to the top of every article about what individual employees are doing, temporary changes to HR policy, and current quarantine counts for each and every one. USPS is not special in this regard. If you think USPS is somehow special other than the fact you work for them, you need to show why.
If you want to add a few sentences to the section Revenue decline and planned cuts about the impact of the pandemic on their budget and revenue, then I think that is perfectly fine. However, dedicating 5000 characters at the top of the article is exactly what WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE are all about.
As for taking it upon myself, that's what Wikipedia editors do. You took it upon yourself to add it. I took it upon myself to remove it, then tag it. That's how things work. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
And when there’s issues between editors instead of an edit war we discuss it per the same links you posted Galendalia (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
A single delete, a talk page post, and a tag is not an "edit war". Please stop with that. Do you have anything ON TOPIC to discuss about this section and why it should be retained? 73.254.89.77 (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed I agree with the undue weight the covid19 section has. That is not what the article is about but about the company. One or two sentences in the "Current operations" section would be quite sufficient stating the company implemented extensive health and safety measure for both staff and customers during the pandemic with a few sourced links. What's there now is way too details for such a long article. A possibility would be a more general small section on health and safely that could cover more than just the covid19 issue which will become unimportant or not even newsworthy. ww2censor (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

2censor that is a great idea and I can work on that. Thank for the suggestion and not being rude and deleting everything. Galendalia (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I chopped the Coronavirus section per the recommendation from ww2censor. I’m going to try to get some updated numbers later today. Galendalia (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for the edits. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Postal_Service/Archive_3&oldid=1137284778"