Talk:Thunderbird School of Global Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Arizona (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Fair use rationale for Image:New-tbird-seal.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:New-tbird-seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion[edit]

This article appears to have some problems with tone and content in that it appears to be excessively promotional and its content is drawn almost entirely from the school's one website. Claims of being the oldest, etc, should have 3rd-party sources. We don't need a list of press releases, which are all available on the schools website. Nor do we need multiple links to the website-one is sufficient except for citations. Please compare this article to those of other complarable institutoins for a better idea of how it should look. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it does seem like it's promotional. Then again this 'school' is a total joke of a degree mill or sham school like Phoenix university or all of those "universities" and "colleges" you see on TV that claim you can get an online degree easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.234.202 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

I removed a large chunk of text which was copied/plagiarised from various pages on the school's website. Obviously, plagiarising text is inappropriate under any circumstances but especially so for an academic institution. Please make sure that all text is written in the editor's own words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Trustees[edit]

The "Barton Yount Award" appears to just be a student award, with no greater notability. College articles usually don't list the trustees. I'm going to remove both sections.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits by T-Bird Staff[edit]

I have noticed that (ahem) *someone* has been excising big chunks of historical material that the school is likely to view as embarrassing. I surmise this editor to be connected with the Thunderbird administration. They seem broadly unfamiliar with Wikipedia--for example, they don't know how to do footnotes, or link to other pages. While anyone is welcome to edit, the newcomer should be advised that these edits could easily be interpreted as an attempt to whitewash the article, which would only add to the embarrassment, should anyone take the trouble to trace who is doing this. A number of specific quirks of this writer (for example, their tendency to add "___, Ph.D" after the names of all college presidents, and to gush praise about Thunderbird) bear the hallmarks of a not-very-competent public relations office. Remember--propaganda that looks like propaganda, is bad propaganda.

On the other hand, I found a few lines which appear to have been written by people dissatisfied with the tenure of former T-bird president Angel Cabrera. While this too is understandable, the article ought to refrain from making personal attacks, and limit itself to verifiable, specific controversies. For example, if you write that he alienated the faculty, then there had better be a footnote giving a reliable source for this. I have done my best to make everything NPOV (Neutral Point of View), which for the benefit of our newcomers I remind is the official Wikipedia policy.

That the school has gone through financial difficulties, great uncertainty about the future, and internal disagreements is as obvious as it is understandable. This is a key part of Thunderbird's recent history. To excise it does not make Thunderbird look better--on the contrary, it smacks of a certain corporate mentality that does not reflect well on a school with such a proud tradition, and a commitment to academics. My best advice is to frankly admit your difficulties and embrace the truth, however awkward. This will win you more respect than the fanciest marketing. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.196.68 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

post-Laureate edits[edit]

I have been adding material, which two other editors have been removing, and/or watering down with unsupported pro-administration claims.

As a general principle, the first paragraph of the article should give the bare bones of what Thunderbird is. It is not the place to explain the ins and outs of the Laureate deal, let alone issue a judgment as to whether Thunderbird will retain its independence, etc. (which is very much a matter of opinion). I felt that the connection with Laureate ought to be mentioned--period--here at the outset, since it represents such a significant milestone, but can appreciate the opposite view.

For the sub-section on the Laureate deal (under "History"), I wrote one paragraph summarizing the controversy, and another summarizing the deal itself, then a sentence listing major publications that have covered the issue. Factual corrections are of course welcome (and I have embraced a number of them in my own edits), and the order of presentation is negotiable. However, eliminating otherwise noteworthy material (perhaps because it reflects poorly on the school) is unacceptable. Two-and-a-half paragraphs on the topic are not excessive, considering the volume of mainstream journalistic coverage. It is important that the text reflect both the objections of the dissidents, and the response of the administration. Perhaps I have been unfair to the latter. On the other hand, it is also important that neither set of opinions be embraced as fact--something which I feel the two previous editors have done.

In the future, may I suggest discussing proposed edits here on this page.Dawud (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking to improve this article[edit]

Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of Thunderbird to improve the quality and accuracy of this article. Their agreement with Laureate Education has caused quite a flurry of edits recently, and I'm hoping to address some issues related to that agreement, but also to generally improve the article by adding citations to secondary sources and making sure the tone of the article is neutral and encyclopedic.

Given the contentious nature of the edits that have been happening on this article recently, I'd like to be very clear about two things up front:

  1. I will make no edits to the article myself. As an editor with a financial conflict of interest, I follow Jimbo Wales' "bright line", and make no edits directly. Instead, I'll post suggestions here, soliciting input from volunteer editors, and asking that they move the language into the article if they agree that it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines.
  2. I will serve as Thunderbird's sole point of contact here on Wikipedia. Although Thunderbird is aware that individuals from their organization have made edits to this article in the past, I've advised them to stop making edits themselves.

I'm currently working on redrafting this article, so I don't have any suggestions about specific wording at this point, although I will likely have some in the coming weeks. I'm happy to post sections as I complete them, or wait until I've finished drafting the article, whichever editors think makes the most sense.

Because of the number of recent problematic edits to this article from IP address editors, I've also requested that this article temporarily semi-protected, in an effort to help prevent these kinds of edits.

Speaking of which, there were a number of edits this morning from an IP editor, adding biased and unsourced information to the article. If someone is willing, could they revert those edits?

Again, I'll be back in the future with other suggestions here, but if you have any questions for me, feel free to reach out, either here or on my Talk. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about a recent edit[edit]

As I noted previously, I'm currently working on behalf of Thunderbird to improve this article by bringing it more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines about neutral point of view and proper sourcing of information. Although I'm still working on preparing new language for this article, I'm a bit concerned about an edit made over the weekend. This edit added two pieces of information regarding Thunderbird's proposed agreement with Laureate Education.

The first portion of the edit adds information from a recent study about the number of alumni that support or oppose the joint venture with Laureate. However, the source used appears to a press release, and the study is clearly biased, having been run by the group of alumni opposed to the agreement, and using language such as "The alliance with Laureate is an effort to leverage the Thunderbird brand and its hard-earned reputation in order to line the pockets of a for-profit institution." Given the bias inherent in the source, and the survey's lack of coverage in third-party sources, this doesn't seem appropriate to me to include in the Wikipedia article.

The second part of the edit was to the second paragraph under "Laureate controversy". I feel that the changes made introduce a point of view into what was a very straight forward paragraph, stating what Thunderbird "believes", as well as repeating information that is found later in the paragraph.

I'm curious what other editors thoughts on this edit are. Removal of the information from the survey seems rather straightforward, but what do folks think about the language added into the second paragraph? As noted, I'm currently working on revising this article in toto, so it's likely that this second paragraph will be rewritten, complete with proper sourcing and a more balanced overview of the proposed deal, in the near future, but I still think the current edit is problematic, especially since it was added by an account with no other edits, and at the same time as the clearly biased edit regarding the survey.

What do people think? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very uneasy removing material that is negative to a subject at the behest of one of the subject's employees. However, you have a good point. The material could be rewritten to reflect a truthful and neutral point of view. But that would water down the information so much that it wouldn't even be useful or informative (because of course a survey conducted by a group opposed to the idea is going to support their stance!). So I've removed the statement about the survey. ElKevbo (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much! Any thoughts on the edits to the next paragraph? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Updating this article[edit]

Hey all, as mentioned above, I'm currently working on behalf of the Thunderbird School of Global Management to update this page. The current article suffers from a number of issues, including a lack of sources, non-standard sections for articles about universities, lists (for example, name changes and presidents), and non-encyclopedic language (e.g., listing media coverage of the proposed agreement with Laureate).

To address these issues, I've redrafted the article, adding in proper sourcing and generally making sure that the article complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Because of my financial COI, I won't make any edits to this article directly. Instead, I've uploaded my draft of the article to my userspace for volunteer editors to look at.

I'm not sure what the easiest way to work through this is. If an editor wanted to take on the task of looking through the whole draft and implementing it in its entirety, that's fine with me. Otherwise, I'm fine with working through section by section, slowly replacing the current article. Either way, I'm happy to answer any questions about what I've done.

Despite my COI, I've done my best to stay neutral, balanced, and in line with all of Wikipedia's policies, but please let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested changes and comments are listed below:
  • I'm not sure why the established date is outside of the date template, I would use it in the template.
  • Perhaps add "www." to the URL in the infobox, I believe that's the norm, but can't seem to find anything more official about it...
  • Add information, where possible, to the colors, athletics, or affiliation fields of the infobox.
Unfortunately, I don't have sources for this information.
  • Cf. Yale for information about the "campus" infobox field, that information should be easy to find.
Unfortunately, I don't have sources for this information.
  • I would change the first paragraph to: '''Thunderbird School of Global Management''' is an [[United States|American]] [[nonprofit organization|nonprofit]] [[business school]] located in [[Glendale, Arizona]]. Thunderbird, a privately owned school, offers graduate-level degrees, including [[Master of Business Administration]] and other [[Master's degree]]s. The school offers programs at their campus in Arizona and online for full-time students and working professionals. Thunderbird was founded in 1946 by [[Lieutenant General]] [[Barton Kyle Yount]] and is located on [[Thunderbird Field No. 1]], a former military airfield from which it derives its name.
  • Capitalize the last "the" on the last sentence of the lead for consistency.
  • Add the words "partnership and its" before "the proposed change" on the last sentence of the lead for better clarity.
  • Check all hyperlinks, and update accessdates accordingly. The references all appear to have enough information. I notice that all of your sources are 'cite web' or 'cite news' (online sources), I would try adding references from books, interviews, or journals, those types of sources shouldn't be excluded just for their difficulty to obtain. I'm sure that for a school from 1946, there are several books or pamphlets about the school and its history, or noteworthy alumni or events that are sometimes missed. I've run into that quite a bit.
I've confirmed that all hyperlinks work.
Regarding additional sources—I've used nearly all the sources that I was able to find to draft this article (although obviously, in same cases, I've left out sources that didn’t have any extra info). The only exception being that I did not use a book called Thunderbird: Taking Flight in Global Leadership because it is self-published by Thunderbird, and thus isn't a third-party source.
I actually had several rounds of back and forth with Thunderbird about sources, so I'm relatively confident that, if there are additional sources out there, they don't have much to add to the article at this point, as they're so minor that the school itself isn't aware of them.
  • In the second paragraph of "Early history", change "though" to "although".
  • You may want to italicize or bold previous school names for clarity, especially with unconventional names like “Thunderbird, the American Graduate School of International Management”.
I've gone ahead and put all of the old names of the school into italics for readability.
  • You reference "stricter visa rules" in the first paragraph of "1990s and 2000s". I doubt this was the only factor, it may be a primary or merely contributing factor. I would indicate so and perhaps try to find a source.
The source I have here pretty clearly indicates that the visa rules were the cause, so I've left this as-is. The article reads, "Foreign students, discouraged by tougher visa rules, now make up less than 50% of the school's enrolment, compared with 60% before September 11th, 2001."
  • In the first paragraph of "2010s", replace the first two sentences with: "In 2011, after efforts by a Thunderbird alumnus, Arizona began selling Thunderbird license plates."
  • In the fourth paragraph of "2010s", you write " the impact the", which may sound better as "the impact that the".
  • In the same paragraph,I should note that the facebook group information may not be worthwhile or encyclopedic.
I included this to help make sure I was neutral and balanced in this section, but I'd tend to agree with you that it probably isn't all that worthwhile, so I've removed it.
  • At the end of the "Programs" section, there are three short sentences, each constituting their own paragraph. Either you should add more information or combine the sentences.
Tweaked—how's that look?
  • In "Rankings" remove the redundant term "1st".
  • Also in "Rankings", change "fifth" to "5th" to agree better with "82" within the same sentence.
  • In the same section, make the second sentence active voice by saying "BusinessWeek also ranked Thunderbird as the fifth..."
Done (I'm assuming you meant U.S News and not BusinessWeek here, but let me know if I misunderstood).
  • In the same section, I would merge the two paragraphs together; you're already talking about four different ranking authorities.
  • References 45 and 46 are very redundant, remove reference 46.
  • The "Administration" section is very short. Administration probably shouldn't have its own section until it’s more than three short sentences, otherwise keep the information in the lead.
Okay, I moved the mention of 501(c)(3) status into the lead, and moved the other two pieces of information to the end of the history section, using a {{As of}} flag. That work for you?
  • Alumni sections are always preferred in prose, try to fill it up by finding find graduating years and/or degrees earned there. As well, alphabetize.
  • Why is there a wikilink to the MBA degree article in "See also"? The school gives multiple degrees anyway.
Hmm, good point. I left it in because it exists in the current article, but I've taken it out now.
  • Why did you remove {{Colleges and Universities in Arizona}} from your draft?
Whoops, mistake! Added back in.
  • Relating to text in WP:OVERLINK, you should probably delink some things, like "Glendale" (four instances), World War II (two instances, neither very needed on much-wikilinked sentences), The Higher Learning Commission (three instances), Master’s degree (two instances, and not very important).
  • My final advice is on more content. Look at other GA and FA college articles for possibilities of types of content. Definitely try finding more images. Contact the school to ask for them to release images. The article would be much better with pictures of buildings, a classroom, and especially about the air traffic control tower, which readers are going to want to look at since it's mentioned substantially here.
I've reached out to Thunderbird, and they're super excited about the prospect of including some photos! I'm working with them to identify photos and deal with getting the appropriate releases from whoever owns the rights, but I think this might take a bit of time to get sorted out. What do you think about moving forward with the text of the article (once I've addressed all of your comments, of course), and adding in the photos later once they've been uploaded and cleared?

Please tell me if you need anything else, including greater clarity on the above points. As well, I'd like if you could look over my draft of Briarcliff Manor, New York. I have made numerous developments, but I feel that it still needs quite a bit of work. My draft is located here: User:Ɱ/sandbox7. Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey ɱ, Wow, thanks for these thorough comments! I've been working through these, and should have a full reply/update for you by Friday. I should also have some comments on your Briarcliff Manor draft by then as well. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi again! I've started working through your comments and making changes to the draft in my userspace. I've crossed out what I was able to do so far, and also left you a couple of comments about your notes. It will likely be next week before I get to the rest of these, but I'm hoping to have you comments on your Briarcliff Manor draft later today. Cheers, and thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Your changes so far look good. Tell me if you object to any of my suggestions; I did see your note about the visas and that's fine. My suggestion about putting the navbox back also led you to add it as a category (which doesn't exist), so it would be good to remove that. Also, I would be more than okay to replace the article with your draft even before further photographs are added. My draft article is still awaiting some photographs, and there's a boatload of historical images and media at the village Historical Society.
I would like to note that I changed some parts of my draft today based on comments here, and will change more further. The other editor also mentioned a frequent lack of references, but I noted to him and would also like to note to you that almost everything in the draft has a citation within the relevant paragraph, I just wanted to abstain from citing each sentence if several were based from on reference.--ɱ (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi again ɱ, Okay, I think I've dealt with all of your comments above, although in a few places, I've left you comments rather than making the changes straight away. Curious what you think here. If the article looks okay now, what do you think about moving it over into the mainspace?
Regarding the citations for your Briarcliff Manor draft—okay, that make sense. I do think, though, that in the context of a bullet list, it might be worth citing every bullet, rather than at the end, just so that it's clear that there is a citation for those bullets. As a COI editor, I'm probably overly careful about things like that, but that's my two cents :D Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I'll reply to a few of your comments here:

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • I would recommend updating access dates (See, among other things, this discussion).
Okay, sounds good; updated.
  • If you look at the guideline WP:PRIMARY, it details that primary sources are acceptable for facts and other non-interpretive information, etc. I would bet that the Thunderbird book has plenty of that, and it would be useful. WorldCat lists that you can check the book out from a library at Fort Wayne or Flagstaff, and Amazon and other online retailers will sell it to you for a mere $12 or more. If you don't get it, then I might, if even just for curiosity's sake.
Alright, fair enough—let me try and track down a copy of the book and see about adding some details based on it.
  • I noticed you replied that you were unable to find sources for some material; I did a bit of searching and managed to find this article from CNN Money that states the campus has 160 acres. You can use it as a reference for that infobox detail. The campus is also apparently suburban/urban, but I was unable to find a decent source for that.
Nice find! I've added that now. And yes, it seems clear that the campus must be (sub)urban, though no one appears inclined to say so...
  • Another ranking you can add is this article from Forbes, and while it shouldn't go in the rankings table, it can be mentioned in that subsection.
Also nice find! Added.
  • Good work with the 'Programs' and 'Administration' sections.
Thanks! I definitely think these sections read better now.
  • I don't know why you marked my comment on refs 45 and 56 as done, but the redundancy should be fixed.
Gah, sorry—I made the change but didn't save; the edit was languishing in an open tab.
Good work, I would say the article is ready for publishing. I hope you still manage to acquire images, but once these few above points are sorted out, I'll be good for publishing the draft. On a side note: I responded to your comment about my sandbox draft, and I wonder what you think of my comments (largely in the first paragraph).--ɱ (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Two other things hardly worth mentioning about the draft: Is the red link in the refs necessary? I.e., does Poets&Quants need an article? As well, in 'Alumni', I would list Dudley as current CEO and Moreno as current president to distinguish from Chammah and Moreno's former offices. Otherwise, looks solid, and good work.--ɱ (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding redlinks in refs—I do this because of a request that an editor made to my colleague, WWW Too. The idea is that it helps highlight, at a glance, the extent to which the sources in an article are well-known (i.e., have valid links to Wikipedia articles) and which are not. I can remove them if you'd like, though. And I've updated the language in the alumni section.
What do you think? Is this ready for the light of day while I try and track down that book and work with Thunderbird on photo permissions? And thanks again for all of your help and thoughts on this; very much appreciated!!
Also, I just realized that I missed your comments over on your Talk page regarding Briarcliff—sorry! I'll reply over there soon. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay; looks fine. Will send through now. I've enjoyed helping you with this, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again! I've just ordered a copy of the book from Amazon, so I'll be in touch once it arrives and I've had a chance to take a look (or I hear back about photos). Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks! I just noticed an extra space in the sentence "As of January 2014, the school's president is Larry Penley [28][25] and the school employs 48 faculty members.[3]" that I must have introduced when I was editing earlier. Can you correct it? Thanks, and sorry for not catching it earlier! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Caught that too and wasn't sure if you wanted it, references usually come after punctuation anyway, right after the name might look off. Regardless, it's fixed. --ɱ (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hey ɱ, I've spent some time flipping through the book I mentioned—Thunderbird: Taking Flight in Global Leadership—and I have a few suggestions for additions that we could make here.

First, I'd like to propose a new first paragraph under the alumni section:

Second, I'd like to propose that we expand the second paragraph of the Early history section, adding in some information about Thunderbird's early curriculum, breaking that paragraph into two. So, the second paragraph would be replaced by the following:

Third, I was also able to pull a bit of information about athletics at Thunderbird from the book, so I'd like to suggest the following paragraph. I think it would probably fit best in the Students section, though I'm open to other possibilities:

One last note—after further consideration, Thunderbird has decided they'd rather not add photos to the article at this time, but I'll certainly let you know if they change their mind!

If everything above looks okay, can you roll these suggestions into the article for me? Thanks again for all of your help here, ɱ! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done, those are interesting additions to the content that works well in this article. I'll be working on implementing it later today. As for images, it's a real shame, and all too common for businesses that request article work. Apparently among the school's clubs is one for photography, the "Shutter Club". It would be all too easy for them to take some images of campus buildings, classrooms, or entranceway signs. I may try to look into contacting some of them. Even if that doesn't work out, we did improve the article considerably.--ɱ (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks so much! And I agree, the article is much better now, despite the lack of photos. If you can track down some CC photos to include, that would be fantastic! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of additional updates[edit]

Hello, I'm back with a couple of updates that I'd like to propose for this article. As mentioned above, I'm working on behalf of Thunderbird, and so won't make any edits to this article myself, due to my financial conflict of interest.

The first update I'd like to suggest relates to the latest rankings from U.S. News and World Report. I propose that the "Rankings" section be updated to read as follows:

The second update is a bit more involved. Recently, the Higher Learning Commission rejected Thunderbird's proposed partnership with Laureate. Given that discussion of the partnership with Laureate is so interwoven into the Wikipedia article, and because things are still a bit in flux here, I'd like to suggest that editors go ahead and update the article as seems most appropriate, rather than going back and forth on specific language. Here's a source the talks about the deal being rejected, and Thunderbird's plans going forward: "Thunderbird invites alternative bids for partnership deal". Feel free to let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tell me what you think.--ɱ (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me—I'll reach out to Thunderbird and let them know this has been done, and see if they have any thoughts. Thanks so much, Ɱ! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem.--ɱ (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)