Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government/Archive 2

Consensus-seeking discussion notice
Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Numbering First & Second Ladies.
Recently, added numberings to the bio articles of the US First Ladies & Second Ladies. These are not political offices & are rarely if ever numbered. Should the recent additions be kept or deleted. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * should be involved here since he sits on my edit history. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning the order of the First and Second Ladies of the United States. It should be made common knowledge that Martha Washington was the first First Lady of the United States, so why is it bad to mention that Melania Trump is the 41st First Lady of the United States? Mind you, these are extremely minor edits, but helpful. These edits went uncontested for an entire week until decided to revert them.   CatcherStorm    talk   02:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should also be mentioned that I spent at least an hour going through every single First and Second Lady's article to make the changes. I was quite annoyed when I was only notified after all of my edits were reverted, rather than after an RfC.  CatcherStorm    talk   02:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a public domain. One's edits are always subject to deletions. PS - WP:BRD sides with me. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not the subject of debate here, buddy. The debate is to whether or not reverting such a minor edit was substantiated. I don't think it was, and I'm sure you can find another person to piss off on Wikipedia.  CatcherStorm    talk   02:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this personal (because it's not to me), this is a content dispute. I certainly will abide by the results of this Rfc, when it closes in mid-May. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – we don't refer to FLOTUS and SLOTUS as the "(number) FLOTUS" or "(number) SLOTUS". The titles aren't like V/POTUS as they aren't political officials. Corky  02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a meaningless statistic that just raises questions as to why the numbers don't match. Some of the unmarried presidents (widower, bachelor) had surrogate "first ladies" - why ignore them in the count?  So I question the contention that these additions are "helpful" - to me they add confusion and are without significance. Tvoz / talk 02:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - We base our articles on what Reliable Sources say, and I have never seen a Reliable Source refer to first (and second) ladies in this way. Basically this is WP:Original research. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless bloat, uncommon in the set of reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 05:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a political office. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment On his talk page, CatcherStorm seems to have given me (or any of us, whoever gets to it first) permission to revert these additions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted them. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification
There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy
There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Assessment bot
How would members of this wikiproject feel about a bot that automatically assessed articles that are tagged as stubs as being stub-class? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me! -- econterms (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with new article
Hello,

I am interested in creating a new page for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency Act of 1996. Can anyone offer any advice or guidance for formatting? Thank you, in advance!

-Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebirds030492 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because there's so much exact syntax in pages about legislation I'd copy a previous one to a Sandbox or draft space or a text editor, then change the details before pasting it in as a new article. The CIPSEA article for example is short enough to work from but it may not be a close fit for the NIMA Act.  The subject is good, and a new article is appropriate.  Generally when creating a new article I try to keep it small at first so other editors have a chance to approve/edit it a bit -- their approval is necessary in this system -- then add content over time.  If you alert people here when it's ready, we'll review it. -- econterms (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"List of acts of the 115th United States Congress" article -- incomplete
I would like to let everyone know that the List of acts of the 115th United States Congress is incomplete -- every bill signed into law after December 20, 2018 (which is over 100 bills) have not been added to the article (see here). As I simply do not have the time to add all ~100 laws, I am posting this here so that an editor(s) with more time might possibly add them. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Veneuzlan politics -- influenced by U.S. politics
FYI. RfC available for comment:
 * Talk:Fabiana_Rosales

This is related to Venezuelan politics. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research issues in articles related to Medicaid estate recovery
Recently, I noted that some of the content about Medicaid estate recovery that was added to the following articles introduced neutrality and original research issues into these articles: I brought this to the neutral point of view noticeboard at, and the editor who added the content agreed to have it examined for policy compliance.
 * : Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
 * : Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
 * : Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
 * : Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
 * : Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
 * : Special:Diff/909480199/909790623

If you are interested in the topic of Medicaid estate recovery, or in United States healthcare laws in general, please help us review the newly added content at the noticeboard discussion or on the talk pages of these articles. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   20:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article
There is a request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   06:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you do an AfC review?
If you can conduct an AfC (Articles for Creation) review of the draft article below, that would be awesome. :0)

Draft:M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual

I would have just published the article, since I am not a new editor. But I had inadvertently submitted the article for AfC review in 2018 (it was not accepted), therefore I thought it only proper to resubmit for AfC review.

While I believe the article meets notability criteria, it is not a long article.

(Note: If you have not conducted an AfC review before, please read how to get involved and the reviewing instructions and then, if you believe you meet the criteria, add your name to the list of AfC participants. Make sure to use the AfC Helper Script. To install the script go to your user preferences and check the checkbox at: Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script.)

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  17:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ But if you have time to help improve the article—M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual—that would great. :^) Thank you  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  02:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

United States Congress - Use of "Congressional Quarterly" and "GovTrack.us" Metrics/Benchmarks in Articles About U.S. Members of Congress
I would like to engage with other editors about the inclusion of "Congressional Quarterly" and/or "GovTrack.us" metrics/benchmarks in articles about U.S. members of Congress. I think that such metrics are as worthy of inclusion in such articles as the height of a mountain in an article about a mountain or the most recent census statistic for the population of a U.S. city in an article about a U.S. city. One such metric is "Voting Participation" (Congressional Quarterly); the equivalent metric is "Missed Votes" at GovTrack.us. These metrics are calculated for every member of Congress every year. These metrics measure, by an objective standard, the number of roll call votes missed by each member of Congress. The time series for "Voting Participation" (CQ) goes back to the 1940s. But other editors are not permitting me to post the "Missed Votes" (GovTrack.us) metric for U.S. Senator Kamala Harris in her article. She missed 62 percent of votes in 2019. Reliable sources have commented on her high number of missed votes in 2019. But other editors will not permit me to include a simple statement in the "2019" section that article that states something like, "Senator Harris missed 62 percent of roll call votes in 2019, according to a GovTrack.us analysis." Other editors say that such a statement is "prejudicial" and "unflattering trivia." Is it trivia to state how high a mountain is in feet or meters in an article about that mountain? Is it "prejudicial" in an article about Detroit, Michigan to cite 1950 and 2010 U.S. Census of Population data and state, "Detroit lost substantial population between 1950 and 2010, a decline from 1.9 million to 700,000, according to U.S. Census data." My biggest problem with the Kamala Harris example is that other editors will not permit a simple, unadorned citation to the GovTrack.us metric. Some editors are demanding that I first find "reliable sources" that comment on the metric. Other editors are demanding that I provide an explanation as the significance of the "missed votes" metric (e.g., why Senator Harris missed so many votes in 2019). Some editors are forbidding use of the "missed votes" metric because a "reliable source" says that Harris's absence "didn't make a difference in the outcome of the votes." Senate Rule VI.2 says that senators cannot be absent from the official duties without leave. When I suggested that other editors help to determine if Senator Harris had official "leave" for any of the 62 percent of votes that she missed in 2019 (e.g. in the Senate Journal or in the "Congressional Record"), other editors lambasted me for suggesting "original research." (I might be wrong, but I don't think it's "original research" to locate sources to substantiate proposed article text.) In the end, editors are citing "undue weight" and "WP:ONUS" and "consensus" to block any mention of the "Missed Vote" benchmark. Jab73 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Updating NOAA Fisheries article
Hi, I'm Allison and I'm an employee of NOAA. As an editor with a conflict of interest, I will not directly edit the NOAA article, or related articles. I am seeking interested editors to review an updated History section for the National Marine Fisheries Service article and implement the changes if they see fit. You may view the complete request and section here. My version of the History section encompasses information in the existing Background and History sections, and provides a cohesive and accurate story of the organization and includes inline citations. I'm hoping an editor will review my proposed section below and place the section at the top of the article, removing the existing Background and History sections. I'm happy to provide more information if needed. Thank you for your help! AP at NOAA (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?== You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon
Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Joe Biden
Project members may be interested in joining WikiProject Joe Biden. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No Executive Branch article
This is just a notice that there is strangely no article for Executive branch of the U.S. government. It currently only redirects to Federal government of the United States section.

This is possibly an easy article creation for anyone who's interested, although I'm not sure how much more you would be able to expand upon what's already described in the Federal government of the United States article section.

Also, I have created a Wikidata item for the topic and reorganized/restructured related items.

Lectrician1 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

American Rescue Plan article
Just wanted to make sure any active members of this project are aware that an article for the American Rescue Plan has been made, and I expect there's some editors in here that would be interested in expanding it. I'm cross-posting this from, as the article has since been moved into mainspace and I expect its relevance will only increase in the coming weeks. (CC, the page's creator.) Perryprog (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Hugo Black
Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

US Intelligence Community Military Members
Some additional perspectives and user input would be greatly appreciated at United States Intelligence Community to determine what, exactly, are the military members of the intelligence community. Garuda28 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

African-American government officials
Hi,

I know there's the Category:African-American government officials I noticed it was created back in 2017 but it only has 20-ish officials in said category. My question is, is this a parent category in that ANY African-American government official can/should be added, regardless of if he/she is state or federal government or is this only for federal government officials? Does it warrant the creation of other likeminded ethnicity/racial categories or subcategories, (Asian-American government officials, Mexican-American government officials, etc.)? Just wondering what others thought. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Bricker Amendment for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC))

Intergovernmental Personnel Act
Hello, I recently created an article for the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. Any help with the article would really be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

RM Illegal immigration to the United States -> Undocumented immigration to the United States
An editor has requested for Illegal immigration to the United States to be moved to Undocumented immigration to the United States. Since you had some involvement with Illegal immigration to the United States, you might want to participate in |the move discussion (if you have not already done so). The RM also includes 4 similar requests. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act
> Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ==

There is currently a discussion of whether to merge Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act into Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

There's currently only two of us discussing and we could use some additional views.

WP:CANVASSING disclosure: I'm leaving this note on the talk pages for WikiProjects Business, Finance & Investment, U.S. Congress and United States Government. A previous note was left on WikiProject Law. These are all the WikiProjects listed on the two pages. TJRC (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022
I recently created an article for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Director of the United States Secret Service redlinks
Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to make articles to fill in the redlinks at Director of the United States Secret Service. There are currently 6 people who have held this position without an article. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

State Department Inspector General article
Hi, on February 23, 2022, I proposed a few updates to improve the quality of the Steve Linick article here that I think may be of interest to members of this project, especially since the Request Edits Queue seems to be pretty stalled. I can’t implement the requests myself since I have a conflict of interest as a personal connection and am aware that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks.Skijackson (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Administrators' noticeboard, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson
I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

New article
Draft:United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace - Someone created this in Namespace, heymanimjosh put it to draft. This document from State OIG makes it undeniable the position existed, but I can't find anything about it. Was wondering if maybe some people with more of a knowledge of the inner workings of State might be able to take a look at see what they can make of it, because beyond that one document, I can't find anything about it. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Vice Presidential candidate selection pages.
There 'may be' a disagreement about whether or not a top image infobox, should be included in veep candidate selection pages (example: the 2020 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection page). I'm contacting, & , as we four have restored or reverted edits on this matter, at those pages. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Laptop RFC
We need more input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice
Brown v. Board of Education has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input on Post Office vs. Postal Service terminology in the USPS article
Hello! I recently made an edit request on the USPS Talk page (request here) and am seeking advice from editors here. I’ve received feedback from an editor who recommended that additional input was needed before the edits could be made.

My request asked that instances of "Post Office" (or "post office") that refer to the agency be changed to "Postal Service" or "USPS". There are many of these instances in the Postal Service article.

I believe the change from Post Office to Postal Service is necessary because although they are sometimes are used interchangeably, they are meaningfully different terms, and since this is an encyclopedia, it would be best to make the language here as accurate as possible.

I would love feedback from editors on what should be done on the USPS page, and potentially other pages, with regards to this terminology change. Thank you so much! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fed gov - executive branch section
I'm working on improving the Federal government of the United States article and section. Let me know if any suggestions or if anyone wants to help. Thanks Hannahthom7 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of the United States
If anyone watching here has not seen the ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States it could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to center currently around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. They could use some expert opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking editor input on United States Postal Service edit requests
Hey there! I'm here to ask the if anyone here would like to review one or both of two open edit requests on the United States Postal Service Talk page, the first of which proposes updates to the article's During the Trump administration section and the second of which does the same for the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail one. My main goal with these requests is to ensure that descriptions of certain recent events in the agency's history are fully correct, and to add fresh information that's been reported by trusted journalistic publications. Given that the Postal Service is a US government agency, I figured I might find interested editors here. To be clear, I'm a USPS employee with a conflict of interest, so I can't edit the agency's article myself. I need independent editors to assess the validity of my proposed changes. If anyone from this WikiProject wants to give my requests a review, please use the links above and let me know what you think. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Content assessment
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. &#x0020;This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing article on major topic
There is a missing article on Criminal justice in the United States. Please discuss at: WT:WikiProject United States. Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the difference with criminal law of the United States? Dimadick (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input on Louis DeJoy GOP Fundraising section
Hello! Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in examining some changes I have proposed to the US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's article? I'm looking to update the section of the article that covers Mr. DeJoy's history as a Republican Party fundraiser. You can review my suggested edits, and my reasons for proposing those edits, by following this link. I'm a USPS employee operating as a COI editor, so I'm not editing the DeJoy article directly. I'm instead making suggestions and then allowing independent editors to decide whether they improve the article and/or align with Wikipedia's content guidelines. If somebody here could help me with this batch of suggestions, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Multi-member district infobox
Hello! I can't seem to find a specific infobox template that supports a multi-chamber district (i.e. a district that elects 2 representatives and 1 senator to a state legislature,) can one of you direct me to one that would be most useful for this purpose? specifically, one similar to Template:Infobox United States legislative district (this one only seems to support 1 representative.) Longestview (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Opinions requested on a relevant template
Please see Template_talk:US_House_speakers and comment. Thank you. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input on Delivering for America section for USPS article
Hello! I'm a United States Postal Service employee hoping to add some new information to the USPS article. On the article's Talk page, I've put forward a section draft that covers the Postal Service's Delivering for America plan, a 10-year reform effort that's meant to improve the agency's efficiency and financial stability. There's been some back-and-forth between myself and independent editors, and if you scroll through that discussion, you can see that I've put forward a few different versions of the section draft. I think my most recent one is pretty balanced and comprehensive, but as a COI editor, I know the final determination isn't up to me. No obligation, but if anyone here is interested in reviewing my latest draft, please head over to the USPS Talk page (link here) and have at it. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)