Talk:RMJM

---

Awards section

I will shortly be updating the awards section for this entry and wish to discuss the format for inclusion as I believe other editors might have a better inclusion criteria than myself. I will be adding in any awards with relevant project that: 1) Are recent, within 4 years. 2) Have an external link(not the RMJM website to remove any possible bias) for citation. 3) The awarding body has a website OR a wiki entry. This actually narrows it down to less than 5 entries, however of those they are consistently reverred awards so it should make for an interesting section. Your thoughts are very much so appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.247.136 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RMJM Hillier naming convention

RMJM American operations are not known as RMJM Hillier. The editor of this information is using a source that is hideously out of date. All RMJM operations are branded as just that, RMJM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.247.136 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for further citing of Hong Kong dispute

The section regarding the Hong Kong dispute is poorly referenced citing only a single source. This is compounded by the original source also being a poorly investigated newspaper article by the Scotsman. Given its context more references should be cited to clarify its validity. To cite or scrub, for that is the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.247.136 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, one must question the actions of whoever it is repeatedly restoring/removing the section 'Hong Kong dispute'. I have removed this and anyone who feels that there is a legitimate reason for having this here can feel free to comment however given the information above, it is readily clear that it is biased information which contradicts the very tenet of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.247.136 (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Scotsman meets the requirements of a reliable source and the dispute is notable. You may also have seen this Guardian item which refers to the Scotsman article and is also critical of the company.

Please read the rules and understand that criticism is to be included, and don't remove fair summaries of properly cited sources, however much you dislike the source.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never worked for RMJM or its competitors and have no intention of doing so. Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

UK link

A couple of editors have been having a to and fro about whether or not UK should appear in the infobox next to the principal office. From the outset Ramjam's been a UK practice rather than a primarily Scottish practice like Reiach's, so in this instance I think the UK link is useful. Their own website describes themselves as a UK practice. We've got to think of how this reads internationally to people unaware of the four nations context, so I've reinstated the UK link. . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind about the UK link. Turbo Golf (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One must then wonder why you removed it here and here without explanation (and on the latter occasion, reverting another editor) then. --Breadandcheese (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Turbo Golf is learning and should not repeat that mistake. . . dave souza, talk 15:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Locations

Refer to the official RMJM website, it's becoming understandably that there are also RMJM's branches in Vladivostok, Russia; Abu-Dhabi; Edinburgh; Istanbul and there's no this one in Philadelphia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.116.34 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An ad no more, hopefully

The article was fine, if rather basic, until Grammarisfun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) showed up. Grammasisfun seems to have simply turned the article into a PR vehicle for its subject. So I've reverted the intro back to before then, and merged in some of the uncontroversial changes made since then (I sincerely apologise if I've stomped too heavily one anyone's work in doing so). I've toned down the encomium and removed a bunch of the unencyclopedic staff list (even now its longer than I'd like). I've left the awards for now, but probably we should thin these out too - notable awards (ideally ones for which we have, or will have, an article) are one thing; whether all these are worth mentioning in a well-balanced article is another matter. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Fred Goodwin

Can anyone tell me why a properly cited reference to Goodwin was removed without an edit summary? By any standard, employing the worlds worst banker is notable. I intend to restore it but if anyone knows whether he is employed for his knowledge of unsound banking or architectural skills, I would be glad if they would contribute as that should make a better encyclopedia article. I will of course stick strictly to the text of good quality WP:SOURCES, maintain WP:NPOV and treat references to Goodwin in accordance with WP:BLP but I would expect a very good reason to be given for removing a reference to him.JRPG (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Revised Entry

Thank you for allowing us to make changes to our Wiki page. You'll notice the entire page was updated to reflect the present firm and the 2011 firm information.
RMJM Webmaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.188 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Administration and troubled times

As difficult as it will be for some, RMJM are going through a very public downturn with some serious (and founded by KPMG audit) allegations levied at them (non payment of staff, non payment of tax in uk etc..). This in conjunction with the administration in the UK is an important time in RMJM history. This should be reflected in the wikipedia article TheSandRefinery (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/kolkuttaairport/

  Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)