Talk:Highly Skilled Migrant Programme

message: Already covered in Immigration to the United Kingdom.  No seperate notability. JASpencer 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section of Immigration to the United Kingdom which mentions the HSMP does not seem to give anything like the detail (basis for allocation of points, etc.) which this article does. Do not merge. -- Arwel (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point of a merge though - some of the info here would be moved across. That's the difference between a merger and a simple deletion. Cordless Larry 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Immigration to the United Kingdom]] 

message: how exactly does the british immigration services verfity whether or not these hsmp applicants are telling the truth about having certain qualifications or salaries or if they are just lying so they will get approved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.244.236 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of the application process, the applicant has to supply documentary evidence of their qualifications and salary, such as original copies of degree certificates and payslips. Work Permits UK then verifies these by contacting the source. It's all outlined here. Cordless Larry 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I presume it goes through uk.sitestat.com because the Home Office use that to monitor traffic (incidentally, you can also find it at http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/11406/49552/HSMPguidancenotes26012007.doc). As you can see from the document, it's the offical Home Office guidance notes, so I'm not sure why you're accusing me of misleading somehow. My answer was based purely on Home Office documentation. I'm sorry if this doesn't match your experience, but that's the Home Office's fault, not mine. Cordless Larry 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, but I'm still not entirely sure how I'm supposed to have mislead anyone given that all I did was set out the Home Office guidance. Are you saying that they don't verify qualifications, because in the guidance it says "Evidence provided in respect of points being claimed must be from a clear source.  Work Permits (UK) may seek to verify this evidence with the source.  You must ensure that any evidence provided can be independently verified". Cordless Larry 22:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, I never said that photocopies were acceptable, as you claim. I said "original copies of degree certificates and payslips" - originals, not photocopies. Cordless Larry 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, I guess I should have stressed the may. Although I hope people are reading the guidance notes themselves rather than relying on the talk page of a Wikipedia article for advice before applying! And surely people would still submit documents if they thought they were going to be verified - that's kind of the point of verification. Cordless Larry 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Home Office guidance notes must surely be the most authoritative source, so I think that's what there needs to be a link to. Cordless Larry 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you are bound to be approved by reading the guidance notes is irrelevant (and I also assume that you're not bound to be approved if you consult lawyers either). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a guide to getting a visa. Cordless Larry 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Guidance notes are great, but that's why lawyers exist.Dr Vlach 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't intending to give advice. I was answering a question someone had about how the system works. I have no idea whether they're applying or not. Cordless Larry 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how exactly would me saying "the applicant has to supply documentary evidence of their qualifications and salary" "absolutely result in refusal"? Will the Home Office turn people down for following the guidance notes? I'd also appreciate it if you didn't say that I don't "have a thorough understanding" of the subject - you have no idea what my background is so have no way of knowing this. Cordless Larry 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We can leave it there, although I should clarify something - by "original copies" I meant originals, not photocopies. That's the term the Home Office guidance uses so I meant it in that sense. I didn't mean to imply that a copy would be sufficient. Cordless Larry 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proof 

message: Here's the link.
*HSMP Points Calculator
I recommend leaving it here on the talk page and waiting for uninvolved editors to evaluate it.  If they decide it's worth having in the article they'll paste it there.  If not, the page will eventually get archived.  Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to give an outside view and as the person who originally removed the link in the first place - I'm completely opposed to having a points calculator that leads a wikipedia editor into a commerical site. Plain and simple. Irrespective of our other policies and guidelines, we are an open source project and its unacceptable for donations to the foundation to be used to support advertising for outside companies. If someone wants to create an advert free calculator and post a link, then that is a different matter and the article could do with such a link. But adverts? No thanks. --Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If users want to find a HSMP calculator, a quick Google search reveals many options.  Why are people spending so much energy to add this link? Wikipedia isn't for search engine optimization. This same link is being advertised through Google AdWords.  Surely if it pays to advertise, then there's a strong commercial incentive to add the link to Wikipedia.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Yes, you can find quite a number of points calculators. There is of course the old cliche regarding quality verus quantity. When the rules changed the vast majority of online points calculators were not updated for anywhere up to a month or more, thus leaving incorrect advice for people for a long period of time. Our calculator was the first on the internet to be updated and this was done on the day that the changes were announced. This is an important issue for some people. I am also somewhat dismayed that spending my time writing an accurate article, to replace the previous incorrect and outdated article, is being seen by yourself as being some cynical attempt to manipulate the search engines (based upon your statements prior to your edit), which is what 'search engine optimisation' is as far as I am concerned. It is not like I have simply dumped a link at the end of an existing article - I spent quite some time writing this. What would Wikipedia be without people who know what they are talking about contributing articles? If being able to find something by a Google search means a link is not required or of use then presumably there are a vast number of links on Wikipedia that should also be removed? Finally, I am not spending energy to try and have a link added - I am spending time trying to get it reinstated and I fail to see the logic of previous statements made whereby it would be ok for anyone except me to place a link there, regardless of me having taken the time and trouble to write the article. Seems like a very odd stance to take. Your edit making comment about commercial incentives is rather missing the point in my view. I am all in favour of the open source community and contribute to it on other projects, but to exclude useful and relevant links purely on the basis that they lead to a commercial site does not seem realistic, especially when it is only a commercial concern that will have the knowledge to supply an up to date resource such as the HSMP points calculator. Spooky69 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't use Wikipedia for self-promotion.  This is a path to the dark side. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand your frustration at the rule saying you can't add the link yourself, Spooky69, but that's what the rule says. Please don't think I'm just saying it to be awkward. Perhaps if you disagree with the guidelines you should take that up elsewhere. I guess this whole debate opens up the question of whether Wikipedia is about providing purely encyclopedic articles or advice. I tend to think the former, but it's clear there's not consensus, at least not on this page. Cordless Larry 07:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with you about no link better that a promotional link, after all by typing hsmp calculator in Google one can get 100s of websites. I have added link for OISC's article. Feel free to summarise the Legal section. --Webkami 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COIN]] response 

message: Entire text of this page comes from one or two copyrighted publications that are found at the workingintheuk.gov website. The content seems to be entirely cut and pasted, and there is no visible permission for its use. Editing from Cordless Larry also seems to ensure that changes which are made have attributions and footnotes removed. Page should be collaborative effort that is not lorded over by one editor and attributions must be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobFrancisEsq (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry - I'm confused. Are you saying I've been removing attributions? All I've been doing is periodically removing linkspam from the external links section. I've never removed references. Cordless Larry 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All this copyrighted information seems to have been introduced by a huge number of edits by an anonymous editor.  Not only is this copyrighted material, it has also made the article unencyplopedic as it now reads like a guide on how to apply.  I would suggest that we revert this article back to the start of Jan  as this is a nice encyplopedia version of the article that doesn't contain copyrighted material.  johnSLADE (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spooky69 - I haven't added any material to this article. No offence taken, but you should check these things using the article history before making such accusations. As I said above, all I've done is remove what I considered to be linkspam - perhaps I was a bit over-eager in removing the link to the points calculator. Cordless Larry 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The way to take the article back to a previous revision is to go to the article's history, and then find the version you want to revert to. Open the revision  you want (by clicking on the time/date), and then hit the edit tab. Save the article without making any changes, and it will revert the article to that revision. You might want to explain what you're doing in the edit summary. Hope that helps. Cordless Larry 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: Without wishing to open up old debates, I'm still concerned that this reads more like a guide to applying to the HSMP rather than as an encyclopedia article. I've done some copy-editing to remove what sounded like advice (i.e. the use of "you" when talking about the application process) but would like to get other people's opinions on this. Cordless Larry 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article tone

message: Now that the scheme is closed, do we need so much detail on how points were allocated? Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". If no one objects, I'll condense the information into a much shorter section. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since there haven't been any objections I'll summarise the scheme details. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304193541/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/pointsbasedsystem/eligibility/whoshouldapply/ to http://bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/pointsbasedsystem/eligibility/whoshouldapply/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927224805/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A/5/pbr04_50mbas_50.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A/5/pbr04_50mbas_50.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011024719/http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/11406/49552/hsmp1guidance?version=1 to http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/11406/49552/hsmp1guidance?version=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified