Talk:Louis DeJoy

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Louisdejoy.png

Why isn't his background listed?
His wife is listed as a Polish-American yet there's nothing of his background? That's odd. What's his family background? Is he a Polish-American too? Or a Russian-American? How did he get to be CEO? When was he born? What year did he graduate university? There's so much missing from this. It's one of the most ridiculously lacking pages I've ever seen on Wikipedia. 101.109.211.6 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * adding on, there is an assertion that he owns stock in USPS competitors ([19],[20]), I could not find any reference to that in the cited links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.206.28 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If no reliable source lists his birth date, ethnic background, or college graduation year, then that material will not be included in the article. KidAd (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Headings
, I would prefer to stop edit warring and discuss this, but the WP:ONUS is on you to change the formatting from what is standard. KidAd (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: DeJoy's net worth (total assets). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Why has this basic information not yet been added? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We would need a Reliable Source for this information. Can you supply one? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Republican donations prior to Trump
Was DeJoy a donor or fundraiser to any prior Republicans such as Romney, McCain or Bush etc and if he was should it be mentioned in the article or was he a Democratic donor prior to Trump 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added Giuliani, and there's a North Carolina politician he also helped from the same source material I included if you want to add it.--A21sauce (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020
Louis DeJoy is a Republican Party Mega-Donor - Not just a "fundraiser". 69.142.189.57 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mega-donor is not an official term. It just means he donates a lot of money. KidAd   talk  22:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The scope of his work for the party has been made more clear with the additions I've put into the body text.--A21sauce (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Investments in shipping companies in competition with the USPS
Are DeJoy's (and DeJoy's wife's) investments in shipping companies in competition with the USPS $30 million or $75 million, or some other number? Why such a wide variation? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Tag on article
, you added the recentism tag on the article. I disagree with this addition, because the article does have some information on his past dealings as a businessman, but the reality of the situation is that he is notable almost exclusively for his role as postmaster general. Thus, I think the tag should be removed. What do others think? Sam-2727 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. The tag just asks editors to add other aspects of his life too and add that, such as his ethnicity, and when he graduated from college, if we can get that.--A21sauce (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the recentism tag is unwarranted, there is sufficient detail about his relatively uneventful past and the article reflects that his notability is heavily weighted to his role as postmaster general. His ethnicity and when he graduated are piffling trivia in comparison, not the sort of thing that needs the recentism tag to address and hardly vital counterweights to recent events. I will boldly remove tag. Captainllama (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All and good now because of the work that I did, but just you wait till when I take my eye off of this.--A21sauce (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible illegal campaign contributions
His claim to fame, and how he got this Post Office appointment, is that he has been a champion fundraiser for Republicans. The Washington Post has just reported that when DeJoy owned a business in North Carolina, he got his employees to donate to Republican candidates and organizations, then reimbursed them for the contributions. That, of course, would be illegal. Should we mention it? My feeling is, not at this time since it's just reporting from a newspaper. If an investigation is launched we could report that. Here is the WaPo article for future reference: -- MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be in his biography, but I agree with you that it's too early; we don't know how much weight the RS will give the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how one of his main claims to notability is his role as a major GOP fundraiser, I think a lengthy investigative journalism report by WaPo on that exact topic belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And here's more : Congressional Democrats are calling for a Congressional investigation. Chuck Schumer said it should be left up to the Attorney General of North Carolina, who already said "It is against the law to directly or indirectly reimburse someone for a political contribution. Any credible allegations of such actions merit investigation by the appropriate state and federal authorities. Beyond this, it would be inappropriate for me as Attorney General to comment on any specific matter at this time." And now the NYT is independently reporting it. I think we have enough for a mention and I will work on developing something. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I was behind the curve here; I see it's already been added to the article. I will add the additional information. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until we see the official indictment from North Carolina which will eventually come. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to wait, I think, and when the indictment comes that will certainly be added to the article. --A21sauce (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So long as we include the indictment I'm cool. But do we have any evidence North Carolina is even investigating him? So far all the evidence seems to imply North Carolina is merely aware he exists and might have done something. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the subpoena issued in early September 2020 to force DeJoy to turn over documents he had previously failed to turn over to Congress. It's ridiculous that this information was not already included in this article! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Give a link to an article here, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

DeJoy's controversial changes to the USPS belongs in lead
Content on DeJoy's changes to the USPS, the thing that this man is by far most known for and which the body covers at the greatest length, was removed from the lead. The content was removed by the editor 'Emir of Wikipedia'. Now the lead basically just says that he's the head of the USPSP and nothing more, even though the body is full of content. The content should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this material should be covered in the lead, as this is what the subject is best known for. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need something in the lead about his changes, but not the wording that was removed. It did not explain the situation well at all. This was the removed material: A few months into his tenure as Postmaster General, the U.S. Postal Service’s watchdog concluded that the quality and timeliness of postal service deliveries had declined. After DeJoy's reforms were walked back, USPS mail deliveries improved. I will work on a better explanation for the lead and propose it here. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be further information about DeJoy's USPS tenure in the lede, but more should be covered to provide a complete overview. I suggest that the conflict of interest and election-related material be given additional coverage. KidAd   talk  20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good of you to propose it here, instead of trying to restore it ASAP. Not only is there WP:NORUSH, but this is a WP:BLP so we should edit with caution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. I did not include any references since the rest of the lead doesn't, and everything is detailed and well referenced in the text. "Upon assuming office in June 2020 he instituted a number of cost-cutting measures such as banning overtime, forbidding late or extra trips to deliver mail, removing and dismantling hundreds of high-speed sorting machines, and removing some mail collection boxes from streets. The changes caused significant delays of mail delivery, resulting in investigations by Congressional committees and the postal service inspector general. In August DeJoy announced that the changes would be suspended, and in October the USPS agreed to reverse all the changes." Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good start. I support the text. KidAd   talk  21:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it quite wordy, but still better than what we had before. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. I'll add it, concluding that we have consensus to say something but not necessarily this exact text. I agree it is wordy, but it is wordy in proportion to the amount of coverage the subject is given in the article. As for the conflict-of-interest possibility, or the allegation of election law violations, I don't think those should be in the lead unless they result in charges. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine with me; incremental improvements can be made in the ordinary course. In particular, I'm not sure that sources say that getting rid of sorting machines is "cost-cutting." Neutralitytalk 21:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The last sentence of my version is In August, DeJoy announced that the changes would be suspended, and in October the USPS agreed to reverse all the changes. User:Bdeneris changed it to As a result of the Congressional investigation, in August, DeJoy agreed that further changes would be suspended. On October 27, 2020, only six days before the election, a judge ordered the USPS to immediately reverse all mail collection changes. User:Emir of Wikipedia reverted the change. IMO Bdeneris's version is an improvement and I would like to reinstate it - possibly leaving out "only six days before the election". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Will do. And it was instituted earlier, User:Bdeneris, per the AP link in the body. --A21sauce (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree Bdeneris (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Louisdejoy.png

Error in the article
The article claims that DeJoy reversed and undid his destruction of the post office, but it’s now May 2021 and in Palo Alto, California, we still don’t have our corner mail drops back. I have to drive 3 miles to the post office to mail a letter. Valerie voigt (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Source link doesn't agree with text.
"In addition, Congressman Tim Ryan has referred to the SEC a $54 million purchase of Oshkosh stock made hours before the contract was announced" - link to news article (56)does not sate this. 2601:147:4380:4740:8464:6874:642C:D91B (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic background
Is DeJoy of French heritage? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, he is Italian-American, according to Time. https://time.com/6263424/louis-dejoy-trump-election-postal-reform/
 * Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Miss mail.
I live in the City of Aiken. Alot of our mail is said to have been delivered but is never delivered. We have called the local post office and the tell us once the carrier says it's delivered it not their problem. How can we resolve this issue. The last package was our license plate was said to have been delivered on 2/18/23 at our mailbox.When my wife checked there was nothing in our mailbox. Our mailbox is labeled 8181 Truman Ave. Aiken, South Carolina 29803. Please help. Thank you 159.250.133.42 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Correction to education details
Hi there! I'm a U.S. Postal Service employee working as a COI editor to improve various USPS-related pages. My full conflict-of-interest declaration is on my user page, and you can see the edits I've requested by consulting from my user contributions history. I want to request a minor edit to the postmaster general's article. A few weeks ago, editors added to the infobox that Mr. DeJoy has received a BBA from Stetson University and an MBA from MIT. The former is correct—here's a link to a New York Times article that says as much—but I'm not sure where the latter claim comes from. I have asked around internally at USPS and confirmed that Mr. DeJoy doesn't have an MIT degree of any kind. The claim doesn't seem to have appeared in any reliable media outlets either. Could editors please remove it? Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hi, thanks for catching that. Best,  Spencer T• C 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciate the help, User:Spencer. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Updated Postmaster General Draft
Hello again! I'm returning to this Talk page to place another edit request that I hope will improve the quality of the article. My request concerns the Postmaster general section of this article. Since I'm suggesting a number of changes to the existing version of the section, I've uploaded a revised section draft to a subsection of my user page. For the most part, I kept the existing material in the section, with some edits and adjustments. I did remove a few sentences, each of which I have noted below, along with the reasons why. The main changes in the draft are the additions of new information based on more recent sourcing, some of which provided an update or conclusion to details in the existing section. I also added over a dozen new sources, to help solidify content in the section. To make it easy for editors to identify parts of my draft that are different from what currently exists in the article: brand new language that I have added is highlighted in green, and language that I have adjusted in order to make it more accurate is highlighted in blue. In the revised section draft I have: I know this is a longer request than I've made before. I'm happy to discuss this piece by piece, but wanted to share the whole section so that you can see the entirety of what I'm requesting in context. While I've aimed to align all of this with Wikipedia's content guidelines, I'm very open to feedback. If any editors would like to help with these changes or have thoughts on them, please let me know. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added "bipartisan" to the first sentence to clarify that the Board of Governors is bipartisan
 * Removed the claim that Mr. DeJoy's vetting process wasn't "normal" as it editorializes. I kept the language about the search firms as that is a more objective description of the vetting process
 * Added a sentence about the USPS inspector general investigation that found Mr. DeJoy met all ethics requirements regarding his private investments; this was covered in later sources has not been added to the page yet to explain how the investigation concluded
 * Reworked the passage about the removal of blue boxes, to make clear that it was established USPS practice, not the result of a DeJoy directive. This has been discussed in multiple sources including the Washington Post and Time magazine
 * Removed "and whether he was complying with federal ethics rules" from the sentence about the Inspector General's review; this aspect and its outcome is discussed earlier in the draft as it relates to the investigation into DeJoy's investments and potential conflicts of interest
 * In the sentences about the Colorado mailers, there is some confusion about the request from Secretaries of state to review the mailers in advance. This request came out of the lawsuit following the initial mailers, asking for advance review of future mailers. I've edited the second sentence to clear this up
 * Changed "reverse" to "stop" in the sentence about USPS removal of collection boxes and mail sorting machines; the boxes were not replaced but the removal was halted so "stop" is clearer here
 * Added a sentence about how USPS performed in 2020 election
 * Made a grammatical fix in the sentence about then-Rep. Tim Ryan referring a stock purchase to the SEC
 * Removed an irrelevant sentence about Biden nominating new governors to USPS board; although this is correct this is more about the board itself than Mr. DeJoy
 * Removed passage about Mr. DeJoy's "plans" to slow service and reduce postal service hours, and the quote about him planning to remain in his role. This passage did not seem encyclopedic, referring to future plans, and coverage since has shown that DeJoy did not reduce postal service hours or intend to slow service
 * Added a sentence about Mr. DeJoy's role in getting approximately 380 million free COVID test kits mailed to Americans, since multiple sources discuss this
 * Added two sentences about Mr. DeJoy's role in getting postal reform passed, again since multiple sources discuss his involvement in the reform bill
 * Removed claim that Mr. DeJoy "flouted" Biden WH instructions to electrify fleet and reworded the rest of the passage so that it reflects sourcing to explain that DeJoy received criticism from Democrats about the lagging fleet electrification, and add in the response from DeJoy which is discussed in sources including this Bloomberg piece
 * Added two sentences about measures taken to further electrify fleet based on more recent coverage


 * Asking User:Spencer and User:Beland if either of them would like to review this request, since they've worked with me on Postal Service-related edits in the past. As I said above, I know this is a long request, so feedback on any aspect of it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Most editors find it much easier to review broken-up requests, and I like to see the "current version" and "proposed version" side by side (with the revised draft, it is a little hard to see the current version, especially for changes in language rather than addition of whole sentences. Sometimes using a table format can easily do this:


 * I have found that if you number the proposed changes, that also makes it easier to state what has been approved and what requires additional feedback. I think with your 15 proposed changes, having 2 sections (one table with 7 and one with 8) or 3 sections (3 tables with 5 changes) would make it easiest to review the changes. Let me know if you think this would be something doable, and happy to loop back and give it a closer look.  Spencer T• C 16:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:Spencer! These suggestions are terrific. Thanks for the guidance. I'll get to work on putting the current and proposed sections side by side, and will build a little table that details the first handful of changes in the proposed draft, which should make the request more manageable. Talk soon! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Updating first part of PMG section
Okay, I'm back! Following User:Spencer's helpful advice above, I have added the current version of the Postmaster general section to my user space, so that it can be easily compared against my revised section draft. Under the current version, I've highlighted material that my revised version of the section removes in red, and flagged passages that I have altered in blue. And then in the revised version, altered language is highlighted in blue and brand new language is in green. You can view both versions of the section by following this link.

I realize that editors probably won't want to tackle every change my revised section proposes at once, so I've assembled a table that details the first four updates I'm suggesting within the first three paragraphs of the section. In that last column on the right, I've briefly explained what I'm trying to accomplish and indicated any new sourcing I use in the revised draft. Here's the table:

I hope that lays everything out clearly. If not, I'm happy to clarify anything. User:Spencer, you might have interest in this, but obviously any other independent editors are welcome to review this request as well. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ In the process of implementing this, with some wording changes to reflect more closely the references. In your proposed text, please include references (so it could be copy/pasted in directly) as you have in your subpage. Additionally please take care with WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING, as some of the proposed changes bordered on possible copyright violations due to very closely following the source text.  Spencer T• C 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and posting, User:Spencer! I appreciate the feedback as well, on putting references in the request and making sure my proposed language isn't straying into copyright violation territory. Before I assemble another request, I'll review my section draft and see that I'm not suggesting anything that's too close to what the cited articles say.
 * One question, related to item number four in the table above: did you mean to leave in that passage about the mailboxes, at the end of the third paragraph of the section? I think you intended to replace it with the revised passage, but they're both in the article at the moment. Thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, have removed that.  Spencer T• C 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for fixing it. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for fixing it. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Updating second part of PMG section
Once again, I'm back, with the next chunk of changes to the "Postmaster general" section. As mentioned above, the current version of the Postmaster general section is in my user space, highlighted to show removals in red and altered passages in in blue. That page also shows my revised version, with altered language highlighted in blue and brand new language in in green. You can view both versions of the section by following this link. Continuing from my last request, I have a table of the next six updates that I'm suggesting for paragraphs six through eleven of the section. In that last column on the right, I've briefly explained what I'm trying to accomplish and indicated any new sourcing I use in the revised draft. Here's the table:

I've included full citations above, where necessary, and tried explain each change in some detail, but I'm happy to clarify anything further. User:Spencer, thanks for the help so far. I'm including you here in case you'd like to continue and welcome any other independent editors to review this request too. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will address each proposed change, see replies to each below. For those that I marked as not done or partly done, open to further changes/suggestions, let me know what you think.
 * ❌ While the "refused to do so" is a quote from Jena Griswold and I agree the language should be changed, the proposed change leaves out the tension between state governments and DeJoy/USPS that all three news articles. Could you more closely specify where the references support your statement that "This request came out of the lawsuit following the distribution of an initial set of mailers, and asked for advance review of future mailers."? NYT states "During the discussion, Jay Ashcroft, the secretary of state of Missouri and a Republican, asked Mr. DeJoy to ensure that secretaries of state would have a chance to review any national mailings containing voting information before the Postal Service sent them, according to people familiar with the call. They said that Mr. DeJoy responded that it would be helpful for states to be part of the review process...Yet multiple secretaries of state told The Times in interviews that they saw the postcard language only after it had been printed and entered the mailstream." The other sources mention similar tension which would be erased in the proposed change and deserves mention (e.g. ABC: "During a conference call with state leaders on Thursday, DeJoy said it was his "intent" to coordinate with election leaders, but conceded he failed to do so and promised to "do better next time.")
 * ❌ This may be an issue of a reference not reflecting the practice. The cited sources, in the intro and  in the text both specify "reverse". This may be a situation in which another reference with further detail may be needed to further clarify the practice changes that happened.
 * ✅ Of note I made this a separate paragraph since it did not really relate to the paragraph it was added to.
 * See the article for how I reorganized the section and highlighted how DeJoy stayed on despite new presidential leadership. I re-edited the highlighted parts to remove information less-relevant to DeJoy and removed needless editorializing.
 * See my response to #5 above.
 * -- Spencer T• C 01:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and making changes so far, User:Spencer. I have responses for you, and also a couple questions of my own:
 * On edit number two: I've found sourcing describing the settlement of the case that may help clarify events. Based on coverage of the settlement, could we add a sentence to note that the Postal Service agreed to let the Colorado Secretary of State review future materials? Something like: The suit was settled that month, with the USPS agreeing to show previews of any future election mailers or materials to Colorado's secretary of state and attorney general for their review and potential veto.
 * On edit number three: I see your point on "reverse". Unfortunately, I can't find a source that offers meaningfully different language, so I'm happy to drop this proposed change.
 * On edits number five and six: I have a couple of suggestions about the subsection headings. Could the second subheading simply be 2020 United States Postal Service crisis, as it appears in related articles? Also, the third subheading seems like it might limit the content of the section. In my next round of proposed updates, I'm planning to put forward information about DeJoy's role in 2022 postal reform and fleet electrification. What about a more general heading of "Additional actions as Postmaster General"?
 * Again, thanks so much for working through these changes with me. Let me know what you think! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer: Just bumping this thread, since it's been a couple weeks since we last spoke. Do you think any of the changes  suggested above are reasonable? Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented change #1. Changed second subheading as requested. I think the other section headers are addressed in the request below from what I can tell?  Spencer T• C 17:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the help, User:Spencer! Do you have any thoughts on the Fleet procurement controversies subsection headline? You  can see my discussion with another editor about it a  little further down  the Talk page. If you don't want to weigh in on that, I understand. But I  thought I would ask. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have anything else to add and don't feel strongly either way.  Spencer T• C 19:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:Spencer, this reply got lost in the shuffle. Thanks for letting me know where you stand on the section heading.
 * Just FYI, I've got two active edit requests over on the United States Postal Service Talk page. The first one proposes updates to the article's During the Trump administration section and the second does the same for the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail one. If either of those interest you, please review away. If not, I appreciate all the time you've already given. Thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I've got two active edit requests over on the United States Postal Service Talk page. The first one proposes updates to the article's During the Trump administration section and the second does the same for the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail one. If either of those interest you, please review away. If not, I appreciate all the time you've already given. Thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I've got two active edit requests over on the United States Postal Service Talk page. The first one proposes updates to the article's During the Trump administration section and the second does the same for the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail one. If either of those interest you, please review away. If not, I appreciate all the time you've already given. Thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Correction to introduction
Hi, I'm back with a shorter request before continuing with the Postmaster General section updates. One of the statements in the introduction incorrectly states the timing of the launch of the USPS 10-year plan: "Upon assuming office in June 2020, he instituted a 10-year plan for the USPS that eliminated overtime, banned late or additional trips to deliver mail, decommissioned hundreds of high-speed mail-sorting machines, and removed some mail collection boxes from streets." The 10-year plan was not launched until the following year, per media coverage such as this Washington Post article, and the Postal Service press release. I think that the language in the introduction is likely the result of confusion between the media coverage of operational issues in 2020 and the launch of the 10-year plan, which came later and established a number of major changes to the Postal Service. To resolve this, could the sentence be edited to remove mention of the 10-year plan? I've written a couple of revised sentences to replace this sentence and better reflect the events, based on the sourcing and how this is now described within the Postmaster General section: "Upon assuming office in June 2020, DeJoy was widely criticized for making changes to the service that slowed mail delivery, including the reduction of overtime hours and additional late trips to deliver mail. He was also criticized for established USPS practices such as decommissioning older mail-sorting machines and removing mail collection boxes from low-traffic areas." As always, I'm open to feedback on this. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Following up on this request to see if other editors might be able to assist here, since  User:Spencer has already given so much of their time. I see  User:Beland and User:Politicsfan4 have also made a few recent edits  to the page, too. Might either of you have an interest in reviewing this  request? I’d be grateful for any input and help you all can offer on this  request or the one below, as I know consensus building is important on  Wikipedia and thought it could be a good plan to have additional opinions  since I've put forward a number of requested edits. Always happy to answer  questions. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited the intro to explain the plan correctly and correctly note which practices were already ongoing. I also added a new subsection in the body explaining the plan in detail; it was fascinating to read. Hopefully that resolves this request. -- Beland (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:Beland! Thanks for adjusting the intro and adding that new subsection. I'm going to make a few minor suggestions. Please implement them or don't, as you see fit. In the intro, could the sentence that currently reads:
 * DeJoy was also criticized for plans to buy mostly gasoline-powered delivery vehicles; this decision was reversed with funding from the Inflation Reduction Act.
 * Be adjusted to:
 * DeJoy was also criticized for initial plans to modernize the USPS fleet with 90 percent gasoline-powered and 10 percent electric vehicles, stating the Postal Service would continue to evaluate the number of electric vehicles to be ordered based on improvement to its financial condition before it purchased additional vehicles. The Postal Service increased the number of electric vehicles it planned to purchase throughout 2022 and ultimately increased the number of EVs the agency after securing congressional funding under from the Inflation Reduction Act.
 * I think that's a fuller explanation of the controversy, and reflects what's in the body of the article. I also have a few requests related to the (largely accurate) 10-year reform plan subsection:
 * Cutting the bit about EV funding and the IRA from the third bullet point. It's a fine distinction, but the initial plan didn't include a request for Congressional funding for EVs and USPS never formally asked for the funding. Rather, it was appropriated within the IRA.
 * Cutting "paper mail" from the bullet point that reads $35-$52 billion from increases in paper mail postage? That increased revenue comes from increased postage on everything USPS delivers, not just paper mail.
 * Adding "select" to the last bullet point so that it reads Reducing select post office hours? I'm trying to avoid reader confusion there. The hours cuts aren't across-the-board; they just apply to certain post offices.
 * Thanks again for the work you've done. That 10-year reform plan subsection is comprehensive, and I'm sure it took quite a bit of research and summarizing on your part. Please let me know what you think of my proposed tweaks. Talk soon! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In order:
 * The proposed intro text is too long, and I think the existing summary is fine.
 * The cited source does show the plan calling for more funding from Congress. I quote: "importantly, with the right level of Congressional support, we can commit to a majority of the Postal Service’s delivery fleet being electric within ten years and a fully electric fleet by 2035. We welcome support from Congress that advances the goal of a Postal Service vehicle fleet with zero emissions and the necessary infrastructure that will be required to support it. An additional investment of approximately $8 billion is needed to electrify our delivery vehicle fleet to the maximum extent that is operationally feasible."
 * I dropped "paper mail" as requested.
 * Rephrased as "Reducing hours at some post offices"
 * -- Beland (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Beland: That all seems fair to me. Thanks for reviewing, and for explaining your reasoning. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:Beland! Sorry, I actually have one sticking point on the intro passage about EVs. I see what you mean about my proposed language being too wordy, but how about this?
 * DeJoy was also criticized for initial plans to buy mostly gasoline-powered delivery vehicles. He ultimately increased the number of electric vehicles added to the USPS fleet due to the agency's improving financial outlook, which was helped by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
 * The distinction I'm trying to make here is that DeJoy wasn't ever opposed to adding more EVs to the fleet modernization order, so he didn't "reverse" himself. Rather, he stated he was waiting for the agency's financial outlook to improve, because EVs are an expensive initial investment. He then followed through on that, upping the EV order once in July (post-Postal Reform) and again in December (post-IRA). You can trace the timeline with these three CNN pieces from February '22, July '22, and December '22.
 * Okay, I've said my piece. Thanks so much for your patience. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing out that the article glosses over an important intermediate plan. I've updated the body from a comprehensive Washington Post article, and rewrote the intro to better summarize events. Sources use words like "significant revision" so I used that instead of "reverse" even though I think it's arguably still apt. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for researching the issue further and adding some more context, User:Beland. I really appreciate your curiosity and effort! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * DeJoy was also criticized for initial plans to buy mostly gasoline-powered delivery vehicles. He ultimately increased the number of electric vehicles added to the USPS fleet due to the agency's improving financial outlook, which was helped by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
 * The distinction I'm trying to make here is that DeJoy wasn't ever opposed to adding more EVs to the fleet modernization order, so he didn't "reverse" himself. Rather, he stated he was waiting for the agency's financial outlook to improve, because EVs are an expensive initial investment. He then followed through on that, upping the EV order once in July (post-Postal Reform) and again in December (post-IRA). You can trace the timeline with these three CNN pieces from February '22, July '22, and December '22.
 * Okay, I've said my piece. Thanks so much for your patience. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing out that the article glosses over an important intermediate plan. I've updated the body from a comprehensive Washington Post article, and rewrote the intro to better summarize events. Sources use words like "significant revision" so I used that instead of "reverse" even though I think it's arguably still apt. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for researching the issue further and adding some more context, User:Beland. I really appreciate your curiosity and effort! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've said my piece. Thanks so much for your patience. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing out that the article glosses over an important intermediate plan. I've updated the body from a comprehensive Washington Post article, and rewrote the intro to better summarize events. Sources use words like "significant revision" so I used that instead of "reverse" even though I think it's arguably still apt. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for researching the issue further and adding some more context, User:Beland. I really appreciate your curiosity and effort! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Updating final part of PMG section
Hello again! To wrap things up my Postmaster general section update requests, I have one final round of suggestions. Editors can find a comparison of my changes with the pre-update version of the Postmaster general section in my user space, highlighted to show removals in red and altered passages in in blue. The revised version shows altered language highlighted in blue and brand new language in in green. You can view the comparison by following this link. For the final few requests for this section, I have a table of the last four updates that I'm suggesting for what is now the final subsection of the Postmaster general section. The table shows the current text, proposed new content or updates, and the final column provides an explanation. Here's the table: Once again, I'm happy to provide any further clarification needed on any of the above. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all of these changes are acceptable; they seem to be whitewashing some bad choices and adding a list of accomplishments. -- Beland (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Beland. I recognize that you have to be cautious with edit requests like this and review with a critical eye. I honestly appreciate the feedback. Some clarification, though: The additions I'm proposing here all felt notable (to me) due to being well covered by top tier sources (e.g., Time, WaPo, The Hill, etc.), and relating to major events for the Postal Service and the postmaster general.
 * Regarding the fleet electrification, I aimed to preserve the criticism about the vehicle purchase order but summarize to the major point, removing wording ("flouted") which is not encyclopedic and came from a quote about one individual's opinion. I also provided the postmaster's response to the criticism as covered by major outlets. I understand that editors without a bias need to review and decide what changes can be accepted, but hopefully this helps explain further why I made these requests. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the fleet electrification, I aimed to preserve the criticism about the vehicle purchase order but summarize to the major point, removing wording ("flouted") which is not encyclopedic and came from a quote about one individual's opinion. I also provided the postmaster's response to the criticism as covered by major outlets. I understand that editors without a bias need to review and decide what changes can be accepted, but hopefully this helps explain further why I made these requests. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I assume you are proposing these edits because the USPS is paying you to make the agency look better. I had some time to look through these in detail this evening. I actually ended up adding all the additional details, plus a few more from the cited pieces; the accomplishments did indeed seem notable. I left in "flouted" but attributed it to the one person who said it. It's certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice, but the quote does seem to give a good flavor for a widely held opinion. I created a subsection "Relationship with Biden Administration" to separate the fleet stuff from coverage of political friction and successful collaborations. I think that should resolve this request. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and making those edits, User:Beland! Very much appreciate the help with this. A couple of questions for you: First, would it be reasonable to change the subheading "Fleet procurement controversies" to "Fleet procurement" to be more encompassing of all of the events? For example, the latest updates on the fleet purchase are certainly not controversial.
 * Second, if you have the time, would you be willing to also review the introduction request above? Thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say government spending on electric vehicles is pretty controversial among conservatives, and that procurement could be seen simply as a resolution to the controversy being covered in that section, so I think I'll leave it unless other uninvolved editors see fit to change it. I'll take a look at the intro request. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say government spending on electric vehicles is pretty controversial among conservatives, and that procurement could be seen simply as a resolution to the controversy being covered in that section, so I think I'll leave it unless other uninvolved editors see fit to change it. I'll take a look at the intro request. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Trimming Personal Life section
Hello, I'm back! I'd like to ask editors to consider the Personal life section. Would it be reasonable to remove most or all of the second paragraph? For reference, here's the text:

'The couple have twin children and maintain at least two homes: one in the Kalorama neighborhood in Washington, D.C., and the other, from prior to DeJoy's government appointment and bought with Wos in 2005, a 10900 sqft mansion in the Irving Park Historic District next to the Greensboro Country Club Golf Course  in Greensboro, North Carolina. The latter has been the location of several political fundraising events. ''

I understand that Mr. DeJoy and his wife are both public figures, but their children are not. And providing the location of their homes feels slightly invasive. I worry the information might be used for harassment purposes, especially considering one of the citations on the sentence about his Greensboro home links to a tweet containing the address of the country club near the house. To be clear, I'm not necessarily asking that the fundraising mention be expunged. (Though obviously, his efforts in that area are covered pretty extensively in the Republican Party fundraising section.) I'm more concerned about the exposure of Mr. DeJoy's personal details, some of which I believe are protected under Wikipedia's Biography of living persons guidelines. Thanks in advance to any editors who jump in to help here. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply 1-JUL-2023
Regards, Spintendo  18:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The information appears to be referenced (and thus, already available from) third party sources. That being said, consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than the mere existence of a reliable source that can be verified. This, however, usually entails direct addresses being published in the article, which is not the case here.
 * 2) Nevertheless, if the subject feels that there is a security issue that Wikipedia conceivably ought to remedy, then the subject or the subject's representatives are free to contact the oversight team for assistance. They may also contact Wikipedia directly by email at
 * 3) I'll leave the request edit template open so that other editors can add their feedback.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This request is denied because the details of the paragraph are not protected by the BLP policy and can remain in the article. Quetstar (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, User:Quetstar! Thanks for reviewing my request. I'll trust your grasp of the BLP guidelines over my own, since you're an experienced editor. Could we at least remove the sources footnoted 9 and 10 in the passage above? The first one is a tweet and the second is a landing page with directions to the Greensboro Country Club. As I understand it, those sources don't meet Wikipedia's content standards.
 * Thanks again and let me know what you think! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and let me know what you think! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Addition to Business section
Hey there! I'm proposing that information about Mr. DeJoy's former company, New Breed Logistics, be added to the Business section. You can see what I'm suggesting below. The new sentence is highlighted in green. It basically bisects what is now the first sentence of the section. I've formatted it here so that, if editors approve it, all they need to do is remove the highlighting code and it should be good to post to  the article:
 * DeJoy was CEO of High Point, North  Carolina-based New Breed Logistics from 1983 to  2014.  For four consecutive years, 1995 through 1998, New Breed received the United States Postal Service's Quality Supplier  Award.  DeJoy retired after his company was acquired by the  Connecticut-based freight transporter XPO Logistics for a  reported $615 million. Following  that acquisition, he served as CEO of XPO's supply chain business in North  America until his retirement the next year and was appointed to a strategic  role on XPO Logistics' board of directors where he served until  2018.

I think this new information is relevant considering that Mr. DeJoy went on to  become postmaster general. It establishes that, though he did not work for the Postal Service prior to taking over as PMG, the company he ran as CEO  worked with the agency frequently and proficiently enough that it recognized  New Breed as a valued partner. I'll tag in three editors here, who have been helpful in reviewing USPS and Mr. DeJoy-related material over the past few months. User:Beland, User:Quetstar, and User:Spencer: you're all welcome to take a look,  as are any other independent editors. If you've got thoughts or questions, I'm here to field them. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more helpful having a sentence or two about New Breed (for example, that it was a contractor for USPS), rather than a one-off description of an award that the company received that may be more fitting for the specific company page, rather than on DeJoy's biography.  Spencer T• C 18:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion, User:Spencer. Thanks. I'll revise my suggested addition here:
 * DeJoy was CEO of High Point, North Carolina-based New Breed Logistics from 1983 to 2014. New Breed was a United States Postal Service contractor for over 25 years. The company provided shipping logistics support to USPS mail processing facilities and, from 1995 through 1998, received four consecutive Quality Supplier Awards from the federal agency.  DeJoy retired after his company was acquired by the Connecticut-based freight transporter XPO Logistics for a reported $615 million. Following that acquisition, he served as CEO of XPO's supply chain business in North America until his retirement the next year and was appointed to a strategic role on XPO Logistics' board of directors where he served until 2018.
 * Note that I dropped the NPR source and added pieces from the New York Times and Greensboro News and Record. Those two articles alongside the USPS report, which is just there to confirm the years New Breed received the Quality Supplier Awards, substantiate everything described in those two sentences I'm suggesting we keep mention of the QSAs in there to illustrate that, under DeJoy's leadership, New Breed had a productive relationship with the Postal Service. But obviously you can make the final determination on whether it's an important enough detail to include. Let me know what you think, and thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the information regarding the company; as above, I think that information regarding the awards is better fit for an article about New Breed/XPO specifically, but will defer to another editor regarding that proposed change. Only adding awards but not adding information about how a USPS inspector general audit found that New Breed may have overcharged for contracts or lawsuits regarding harassment/racism at the company leads to bias, and ultimately I think the XPO article (or if there is one about New Breed) should have more information about that first.  Spencer T• C 21:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Spencer! Thanks for giving this a thorough review. I always appreciate your perspective, and how you explain your reasoning. I take your point about not wanting to provide an overly rosy picture of New Breed, and also not going on at great length about the company itself since this is an article about Mr. DeJoy, not his former business. If you're interested, I've proposed some updates to the Republican Party fundraising section below. Feel free to take a look. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that I dropped the NPR source and added pieces from the New York Times and Greensboro News and Record. Those two articles alongside the USPS report, which is just there to confirm the years New Breed received the Quality Supplier Awards, substantiate everything described in those two sentences I'm suggesting we keep mention of the QSAs in there to illustrate that, under DeJoy's leadership, New Breed had a productive relationship with the Postal Service. But obviously you can make the final determination on whether it's an important enough detail to include. Let me know what you think, and thanks again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the information regarding the company; as above, I think that information regarding the awards is better fit for an article about New Breed/XPO specifically, but will defer to another editor regarding that proposed change. Only adding awards but not adding information about how a USPS inspector general audit found that New Breed may have overcharged for contracts or lawsuits regarding harassment/racism at the company leads to bias, and ultimately I think the XPO article (or if there is one about New Breed) should have more information about that first.  Spencer T• C 21:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Spencer! Thanks for giving this a thorough review. I always appreciate your perspective, and how you explain your reasoning. I take your point about not wanting to provide an overly rosy picture of New Breed, and also not going on at great length about the company itself since this is an article about Mr. DeJoy, not his former business. If you're interested, I've proposed some updates to the Republican Party fundraising section below. Feel free to take a look. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Spencer! Thanks for giving this a thorough review. I always appreciate your perspective, and how you explain your reasoning. I take your point about not wanting to provide an overly rosy picture of New Breed, and also not going on at great length about the company itself since this is an article about Mr. DeJoy, not his former business. If you're interested, I've proposed some updates to the Republican Party fundraising section below. Feel free to take a look. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Revisions to Republican Party fundraising section
With the Business section now updated, I'm going to move on to the Republican Party fundraising one, in which I'm proposing a few changes related to Mr. DeJoy and his former company New Breed's alleged involvement in a "straw donor" scheme. All formal investigations (FBI, FEC, and Wake County, NC) into that incident were subsequently dropped, and I've pulled press reports that confirm as much. My suggested revisions are below, with language I'm asking be stricken highlighted in red and new language highlighted in green. Please click the drop-down to take a look:

In September 2020 The Washington Post and The New York Times reported that according to former employees at DeJoy's logistics company New Breed, he participated in a straw donor scheme, reimbursing employees for making political donations. Employees, particularly managers, were expected to contribute to fundraisers for Republican candidates and organizations; they were allegedly reimbursed in full through the company's system of bonuses. Campaign finance records show that employees at New Breed gave substantial sums to Republican candidates and negligible amounts to Democrats. Between 2000 and 2014, when New Breed was sold, 124 employees gave a combined total over $1 million. Many of these people had not donated before they worked at the company and have not done so since leaving. Pressuring employees to make campaign donations, reimbursements for such donations, and use of corporate money to support individual politicians are in violation of both North Carolina and federal election laws, although some statutes of limitations may have expired. At an August congressional hearing DeJoy emphatically denied having engaged in such practices. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform has opened an investigation into the allegations and the possibility that DeJoy lied to the committee, and has called for the Postal Service to suspend him. North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said that reimbursing someone for a political contribution would be a violation of the law and that "Any allegation that's this serious merits investigation." By the end of 2020, the Wake County, North Carolina district attorney's office had decided that it would not pursue a criminal investigation of New Breed's alleged campaign finance law violations. The office formally announced this decision in April of the following year. That same month, the Federal Election Commission dismissed two criminal complaints against DeJoy, citing approximately 20 New Breed employees who denied being pressured to make campaign contributions. CNN reported in June 2021 that the FBI was investigating the matter. That investigation was eventually closed, with no charges being filed, as reported by Time in March 2023.

Here's a detailed rundown of my suggested changes: Again, my broad aim with these updates is to "close the loop" and provide solid information on how these developments concluded. As always, I'm happy to discuss my suggestions with independent editors. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Removing the line about "pressuring employees to make campaign donations" being "in violation of both North Carolina and federal election laws." Covering the allegations themselves seems fair, since they were reported on by large national outlets, but I believe it's gratuitous to include context about a crime Mr. DeJoy wasn't found guilty of committing. Plus there's a quote from the North Carolina DA that covers similar ground a little later in the section.
 * 2) Removing two instances of "has" from a sentence about the House looking into alleged misdeeds. This is a simple grammatical fix. Those events are firmly in the past, at this point, and are no longer ongoing.
 * 3) Adding a sentence about the Wake County DA's office deciding not to pursue a criminal investigation into New Breed's activities.
 * 4) Adding a sentence about the FEC dismissing criminal complaints against Mr. DeJoy/New Breed, citing ~20 employees who denied the existence of a "straw donor" scheme
 * 5) Adding a sentence about the FBI eventually dropping the investigation described in the CNN report. I've also moved the FBI investigation into its own paragraph, more for ease of reading reasons than anything else.


 * Just popping in here to acknowledge User:Hookawilliamson for implementing a version of my proposed addition of details about the FEC dropping its investigation into the alleged "straw donor" scheme. I appreciate the edit, but I do assume that, since Hookawilliamson is a brand new editor, other more experienced editors might want to further review the change. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changes seem reasonable.  Spencer T• C 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Spencer! When I went to look at the changes you implemented, I discovered that there are now two similar paragraphs about the straw donor scheme. I believe you meant to delete the first one and replace it with the second.
 * And there's a minor typo in the last paragraph. The sentence that begins "|By the end of 2020, the Wake County, North Carolina district attorney's office had decided..." has a stray vertical line at the beginning of it. Probably a carry-over from pasting.
 * Would you mind fixing those two errors? Again, I appreciate the help. Cheers! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks. I appreciate the highlights for changes, but if you can also include a "raw markup" that would be easily to directly copy and past into the article, it makes it easier for me so I don't have to track down and remove the highlight templates. Thanks,  Spencer T• C 22:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, User:Spencer! And next time I put edits forward, I'll include the raw markup in addition to the highlighted copy. Trying to make things as easy on other editors as I can. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks. I appreciate the highlights for changes, but if you can also include a "raw markup" that would be easily to directly copy and past into the article, it makes it easier for me so I don't have to track down and remove the highlight templates. Thanks,  Spencer T• C 22:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, User:Spencer! And next time I put edits forward, I'll include the raw markup in addition to the highlighted copy. Trying to make things as easy on other editors as I can. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Early Life
The articles of both Megan Brennan and John E. Potter have more robust "Early Life" sections concerning their subjects. Does anyone know of sources that would give where DeJoy went to high school, the names of his parents, etc? Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a pair of updates
Hello! I'm back to ask if editors would consider a pair of updates to the article. First, I have a request for the Business subsection. Within the subsection, there is a paragraph about the audit of USPS contracting  processes relating to the contracting of New Breed from 1992 onwards, and the  first sentence is somewhat misleading. It mentions only one of the administrations in power during the time of the contracts with USPS. Could the sentence that currently reads:
 * A 2001 audit found that under President George H. W. Bush, the USPS had  given New Breed Logistics a noncompetitive contract of more than  $300 million starting in 1992.

Be adjusted to: :A 2001 audit found that under President George H. W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, the USPS had given New  Breed Logistics noncompetitive contracts of more than  $300 million starting in 1992. These changes highlighted in blue would make this more  accurate: the audit covered the contracts issued in the period from 1992 to  2001, so, the contracts were issued under President George H.W. Bush  and President Bill Clinton. (Neither the audit nor the cited NBC News report mentions President Bush or President Clinton.) Also, the audit  and source both discuss "contracts" vs. one contract. Can the sentence be edited to add Clinton and correct to "contracts" as  suggested above? Second, could we add a sentence about Mr. DeJoy's private sector experience to the  Selection and conflict of interest controversy subsection? Existing text is below, for context, and my new sentence is highlighted in green:

In the process to identify a new postmaster general, the USPS Board hired two search firms, neither of which included DeJoy in their final list of  candidates. USPS Board Chair Mike Duncan, who had also served as chairman of the Republican National Committee and had known DeJoy personally, was  involved with DeJoy's recommendation for the role. DeJoy was the first postmaster general in two decades without prior experience in the United States Postal  Service. Instead he had three decades of experience in the private delivery sector. That language appears verbatim within the United States Postal Service  article, as a clarification that though DeJoy did not come from the Postal  Service bureaucracy, he did have extensive experience in logistics. I'll tag in User:Beland and User:Spencer here, since they've fielded past  requests and seem to have an interest in the quality of this article. Any help or guidance I can get here would be much appreciated. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply 22-SEP-2023
Regards, Spintendo  22:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ The claim A 2001 audit found that under President George H. W. Bush, the USPS had given New Breed Logistics a noncompetitive contract of more than $300 million starting in 1992. was adjusted to omit any mention of presidents because, as you stated, no President's name is mentioned in the source.
 * 2) ❌ The claim Instead he had three decades of experience in the private delivery sector was not added, per WP:INTEGRITY. One of the proposed references is marked as the source for the claim that "he had three decades of experience in the private delivery sector". The article in fact only states "The cost-cutting measures, intended to address the Postal Service’s longtime financial problems, were imposed last month after DeJoy, a Republican fundraiser and former supply-chain executive, took over the top job in June.. If only one source confirms this information, then that is the source that should be used with the proposal.


 * Thanks Spintendo. You raise a good point about the source for the private sector experience sentence. I'd just kept the sources that the editor used when they added that sentence to the USPS article. Looking again, the first source confirms his 30 plus years of experience. Below is an updated proposed addition, with just that source:
 * In the process to identify a new postmaster general, the USPS Board hired two search firms, neither of which included DeJoy in their final list of candidates. USPS Board Chair Mike Duncan, who had also served as chairman of the Republican National Committee and had known DeJoy personally, was involved with DeJoy's recommendation for the role. DeJoy was the first postmaster general in two decades without prior experience in the United States Postal Service. Instead he had three decades of experience in the private delivery sector.
 * Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sources match request. STEM info  (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to review, and implementing the changes. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sources match request. STEM info  (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to review, and implementing the changes. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding context to Postal Service Reform Act sentence
Hello again! Jonathan from USPS here. I wanted to ask if editors would consider amending a sentence about Mr. DeJoy's role in the passage of the Postal Service Reform Act. The current sentence reads:
 * DeJoy's association with Trump was seen as influential in getting Republican votes for a Democratic policy priority.

My proposed revision is:
 * DeJoy's efforts to whip votes at GOP House and Senate conferences on the bill were seen as influential in getting Republican support for a Democratic policy priority.

My contention is that DeJoy's in-person lobbying efforts were more influential in winning Republican support for the bill than his association with Trump. The latter is intangible and sort of ill-defined, whereas the former is more concrete. It's something that definitively happened. I've cited just one source above, to avoid reference overkill, but I want to emphasize that this particular detail has been covered pretty extensively by the press. Please see this Politico article: "[DeJoy] partnered with the [Biden] administration on the initiative to distribute Covid-19 tests through the mail and lobbied Republican lawmakers to support postal reform legislation championed by Democrats." As well as this American Prospect piece: "DeJoy actively lobbied for the postal reform bill, encouraging his fellow Republicans to sign on." And a report from the Federal News Network: "DeJoy played an active role in pitching the legislation to Republican lawmakers skeptical of earlier USPS reform efforts, but ultimately won them over by providing a 10-year reform plan of the agency planned to dig out a financial hole." Alright, I've made my case. I believe that User:Beland, going off a previous request of mine, wrote the first version of the sentence, so I'll let them chime in here, if they wish to. But other editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion as well. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Going to tag in User:Spencer on this, since they've contributed to past discussions about this article's content. No rush or  obligation here, Spencer. But if you're interested, please take a look. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ With a tweaked sentence for clarity, see my edit. Please feel free to use the request edit template for more broader reach. Best,  Spencer T• C 15:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User: Spencer: Appreciate the help. Thank you so much. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Revisions to Other donations and board work section
Hello again! I'd like to suggest some revisions to the Other donations and board work section, which is largely accurate but hasn't been updated in a little while. I'll put the current section and my own section draft in collapsible boxes, so that editors can easily compare, and then down below I'll detail the changes I'm asking for:

DeJoy donated $747,000 to Duke University in 2014, funding Blue Devil Tower and the DeJoy Family Club at the football stadium. That year, his son was accepted to the school and joined the school's tennis team as a walk-on. His daughter also attended Duke, majoring in music. DeJoy serves on the Elon University board of trustees.

DeJoy donated $747,000 to Duke University in 2014, funding Blue Devil Tower and the DeJoy Family Club at the football stadium. That year, his son was accepted to the school and joined the school's tennis team as a walk-on. In 2005, DeJoy and his wife founded the Louis DeJoy and Aldona Wos Family Foundation, through which they have provided donations to academic scholarships, including establishing the DeJoy-Wos Odyssey Scholars Endowment at Elon University. DeJoy is on the board of the Fund for American Studies. In 2022, DeJoy and his wife funded nine scholarships for North Carolina and Estonia-based students to attend Fund for American Studies programs. DeJoy serves on the Elon University board of trustees.

My suggested changes are as follows: As always, I'm available to discuss any of my suggested changes with independent editors. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove sentence about DeJoy's daughter, since source is just a list of 2018 Duke School of Music grads.
 * 2) Add that DeJoy and his wife set up a scholarship fund in 2005, and that it has provided scholarships to Elon University students
 * 3) Add that DeJoy is on the board of the Fund for American Studies, and that in 2022 he and his wife provided scholarships for nine students to attend TFAS programs


 * I'm going to tag in User:Spencer, since they're familiar with the article and have fielded these kinds of requests in the past. No obligation, Spencer, but if you're interested please take a look! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm not convinced the final sentence is needed, as it seems to be just a regular scholarship award, as covered in the first sentence. Additionally, the 2005 bit isn't supported by the immediate source. Once you have completed fixes, please reopen this edit request. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing my request, User:ARandomName123. I've made the changes you asked for by providing a better source for that 2005 claim, and getting rid of the sentence about the nine scholarships. Updated section copy below:

DeJoy donated $747,000 to Duke University in 2014, funding Blue Devil Tower and the DeJoy Family Club at the football stadium. That year, his son was accepted to the school and joined the school's tennis team as a walk-on. In 2005, DeJoy and his wife founded the Louis DeJoy and Aldona Wos Family Foundation, through which they have provided donations to academic scholarships, including establishing the DeJoy-Wos Odyssey Scholars Endowment at Elon University. DeJoy is on the board of the Fund for American Studies. DeJoy serves on the Elon University board of trustees.


 * Thanks again, Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, User:ARandomName123! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Getting de Joy out of his position with the Post Office
De Joy has done nothing but bring the USPS down. Please list the steps needed to get rid of him. 2601:342:100:CE30:3D7A:720:CFED:96BA (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)