Talk:Highly Skilled Migrant Programme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom[edit]

Already covered in Immigration to the United Kingdom. No seperate notability. JASpencer 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • oppose move worth a separate article - this is something people will search for separatelySpartaz 16:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This scheme is too different from everything else, agree with Spartaz, Upsss, 25 October 2006
  • This has been here a month and the consensus seems to be keep. Shall I remove the tag? --Spartaz 09:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, remove the tag - definitely worth keeping and high interest in this visa. Content updated and correct, but content on the Immigration to the United Kingdom page is out of date - perhaps the Immigration to the United Kingdom page should simply have an internal link to the HSMP page?

OK, I've removed the tag. The article seems to have developed well from what started as basically an advert for a visa agency. Cordless Larry 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proof[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Interesting to note your 'advice' above Cordless Larry. The UK Home Office rarely verify documentation by contacting the source. In addition, they do NOT accept copies of degree certificates and payslips but instead insist upon original documentation, except in very rare and exceptional circumstances. Decisions are primarily made solely based upon the evidence provided and the format of such evidence. I also wonder why the link to HSMP Guidance Notes goes through uk.sitestat.com and not directly to the workingintheuk.gov.uk website? Spooky69 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Home Office guidance makes clear that original documents are required and that photocopies are not acceptable. With all due respect, I think it is always important to only advise on matters when you understand them. People might read such advice, believe it to be true and then waste several hundred pounds on a Home Office fee for an application that simply will not be approved. Spooky69 10:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You interpreted the Home Office guidance, as they say that they "may seek to verify" and "can be ... verified" - entirely different to saying that they do or will. These are significant differences and the devil is in the detail, to coin a phrase. Anyway, this is probably not the place for discussions relating to the detail of such matters, suffice to say that I felt your initial response stating that "the Home Office will check and verify by contacting the source" could give people a false sense of security and your comment was a misinterpretation of the rules. Again, I am not trying to be awkward about this, but a small mistake can be very costly for people whose career relies on a correctly made application. I have no doubt that you were simply trying to be helpful, but this could result in someone not putting in suitable evidence on the basis that they think the Home Office will call their previous employer or University and check their claimed points, when the reality is that this is unlikely to happen and would usually result in refusal. As an example of the way that things currently work, a US citizen or Australian citizen must prove their English language ability in order to apply for the HSMP, but a Romanian citizen does not have to prove this. This is not something that you will find in HSMP guidance notes - it is buried much deeper. 62.49.218.194 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anyone relying on Wikipedia to fill out their applications is probably asking for trouble. I'm suprised that no one has put up a link to the organization of lawyers which are accredited to work with the Home Office. Oh wait, that's commercial. Dr Vlach 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course! Follow those and you are bound to be approved, right? Sorry, but guidance notes simply do not tell the whole story. It is the difference between what someone says they will do and what they do in reality. Oh, and there is no self-assessment points calculator on the Home Office site... oh well, never mind... Spooky69 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't wish to be awkward about it Larry, but to say this is not supposed to be a guide to getting a visa seems a bit odd considering that you were the one giving incorrect 'advice' relating to making an application at the beginning of this section. I only posted my first comment in this section to ensure that people did not think such advice should be followed, as it would absolutely result in refusal. No offence intended, but it is probably best not to make comments about subjects unless you have a thorough understanding of them. In this way the content can be factual instead of simply guesswork or supposition. Anyway, I would not think that anything further needs to be added to this section. Spooky69 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

My issue was not with the "documentary evidence" aspect of what you said but with the "copies" statement, as I thought you were already aware. You have no need whatsoever to take my comments personally. I assumed you do not have a thorough understanding based upon your statements, which are not correct. Again, you stated above that you were answering a question about how the system works, but I will guess that you might have read some notes but have no experience of how the system actually works, again based upon your previous comments. Nobody with a thorough understanding of the subject would make such statements, hence I believe this to be a reasonable assumption. Nothing personal was meant by my comments - it was a simple statement of fact. Can I suggest that we leave it there? Spooky69 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)..[reply]

External Link[edit]

I took down the link to a free HSMP calculator because when completed it led to a commercial site - looks like its a device to drum up business and therefore advertising. No thanks. --Spartaz 12:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The points calculator is an extremely useful tool for people interested in this visa and does not require anything from the user - no personal details are required for the purposes of self-assessment on what was the first points calculator on the internet under the new HSMP rules. So what if the points calculator is on a commercial site? Does this make it of less value? Again, nothing is required from the user - it is free. Even if they ask us for a professional assessment, this is also free. This was updated on the day of the changes being made and it should be seen as a useful resource that will always be kept up to date. The HSMP article was seemingly abandoned, as it was incorrect and entirely out of date when I invested my time in writing this article. Finally, it is also worth noting that a lot of people are in terrible situations with new HSMP applications and particularly, HSMP extensions, at present. I feel that the article is of use and the link was reasonable and of use. Spooky69 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that including links to your own website breaches the guidelines set out at WP:EL. Cordless Larry 16:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I am confused. It was previously accepted that a link to an HSMP points calculator was of value to those reading the article. Are you therefore saying that I can completely re-write an article to ensure it is up to date and providing correct information, but I must link to any HSMP points calculator other than one on my website? I do not understand the logic in having again removed the link. It would also seem that the section on the MBA points provision links to a Financial Times page, whereas it really should link to the relevant page on the Home Office website. I will now go and correct this. With regard to the link to the HSMP points calculator, there are NO conditions on people using this on my website - no charge, no personal details required, no membership required - nothing. It seems odd to remove what is a popular and useful resource simply because it happens to be on my website. It is also worth noting that the points calculator on my website was the first on the internet to be updated to reflect the new rules, by which I am saying that anyone following a link to my points calculator from this article is assured of it reflecting the current situation - others on the internet took nearly a month to be updated. The link relating to conflicts of interest simply state that it should be 'avoided' but also make mention of the exception being links that would otherwise be considered as being useful - this is such a link and others here have said that it is a useful link. Or perhaps you are saying that people should not be provided with a useful link that requires nothing from the user if the provider of the article has anything to do with the site that the link points to? Are we suggesting that if I had come here and pretended to be someone else it would have been ok to leave the link there? This does seem somewhat ridiculous.Spooky69 11:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this keeps getting removed - it is not in breach of the conflict of interest guidelines and, in fact, is in the interests of the readers of the article. It seems to me that there is a determined effort being made in this area and I have now spent more time discussing this than I did writing the original article which, incidentally, updated a hopelessly incorrect and out of date original article. Others have said the link is useful and the guidelines clearly state that the exception is where the link would otherwise be deemed to be useful - they have and it is - can we just leave things alone now? Spooky69 08:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is in breach of the conflict of interest guidelines, which state "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it". Cordless Larry 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine if it were not for the fact that the only person that seems to be taking an interest in this is yourself and you seem determined to remove the link despite your previous comment - "perhaps I was a bit over-eager in removing the link to the points calculator. Cordless Larry 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)". So you were "over-eager" in removing the link but continue to do so? Sorry Cordless Larry, but I am entirely confused by this. Either you agreed that the link was useful and that you were "over-eager" in removing it or you think it is of no value to the readers of the article, OR you think that a link to a points calculator would be useful as long as it was nothing to do with the person that made the effort to write the article. Which is it? Spooky69 09:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comment about perhaps being over-eager before seeing the conflict of interest guidelines. To summarise my thoughts on the matter, I'm not personally convinced that the link should be there, but I'm willing to accept that others may disagree. However, you adding it is in breach of the conflict of interest guidelines, so I think the decision should be left to someone neutral. Cordless Larry 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you don't particularly have a problem with the link being there just as long as I don't put it there (?!) and I assume you will not put it back there, so we wait until 2020 until someone happens to come along and thinks it is a good idea? Perhaps you could revert it to where the link was in place - if someone else then comes along and thinks that the link is of no value then that can be discussed. The problem is, if it is only the two of us sitting here with differing views then nothing will happen, which does not seem reasonable. Again, the online assessment tool is an extremely popular and free resource, very useful to those reading the article and absolutely relevant to the article - it should be there. Spooky69 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As harsh as it sounds, you're right: I don't think you should put the link there yourself. That's what the guidelines say, and I think it's best to stick to those. If it were up to me, the link wouldn't be there because although it's free, it is on a commercial site and could be seen as an attempt to advertise. It would be good to get another opinion, but I note that Spartaz has previously removed it as well, so it's not just me who's taken it down. Cordless Larry 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a third party to give a view on this, how about posting it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? Cordless Larry 14:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is decidedly worthwhile. The HSMP calculator is free, and if someone really wanted to be fair there are a number of competing ones which could be listed. I fail to see how Spooky69 adding it is breach of any guidelines, as Cordless Larry's explanation would prohibit those who own copyright on a lot of (even potentially) commercial material from posting it on Wikipedia. Instead, it would have to be posted by someone else, who doesn't own the copyright, which would violate an even bigger Wiki No-No. Dr Vlach 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's a breach of the guidelines is because they say "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it". That's what's now happening.
I also note that the only edits User:Dr Vlach has ever made are to this page. While there's nothing wrong with that, it would be good to get the view of an experienced editor. Cordless Larry 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have to wait for 'experienced' editors? Do we have to have a certain number of people say the link is useful and should be placed before it goes back? Honestly, this seems to have been made into such a big deal. It has certainly put me off contributing further and I think the contributions that I have made provide some value and I know they are certainly accurate.

Having looked at the below post, perhaps if Dr Vlach or someone else were to put the link back then Cordless Larry would be happy with that? That would be in line with the advice given below...Spooky69 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'd be happy for an impartial editor to put it up, but I'm not sure that Dr Vlach is. It's a bit suspicious to me that a new user account has been set up and the only edits made with it are to this page. I may have this wrong, and I apologise if I do, but I have my suspicions that Dr Vlach is a sockpuppet account or at least a friend of Spooky69. Cordless Larry 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more crack like that and I will report this entire thread for abitration. I have no idea who Spooky69, or for that matter, anyone else is here. Couldn't care less either. It's a very cheap argument to say that you will "allow" X, but then turn around accuse people of Y using fake arguments and personal attacks. Now, if you have something to say about my reasoning, that's something else. Looks like you don't. Dr Vlach 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. As I said in advance, I apologise if I caused any offence. I do have something to say about your reasoning, which is to address your statement "I fail to see how Spooky69 adding it is breach of any guidelines", because it clearly is in breach of the guideline that "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it". If you believe yourself to be a neutral and independent editor, Dr Vlach, then feel free to add the link. There's no need for this to descend into a slanging match. Cordless Larry 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, I have no knowledge of Dr Vlach and find the allegations made by Cordless Larry to be rather offensive. An independent view was asked for and when one eventually comes along the only response forthcoming was to cast doubt on the poster of that view. Perhaps the wrong point of view was expresssed? Honestly, all this fuss over a link that most would agree provides a useful resource. I wonder what would happen if Dr Vlach were to place the link? Would it remain there for long...

Had to come back and make one more point. I am truly disappointed that there is such a focus on WHO has placed the link rather than whether or not the link is relevant to the article and is a useful resource to those who are interested in reading the article. Logic would suggest that the link should be there (in the absence of the magical non-commercial site to provide the resource). Spooky69 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN response[edit]

Here's the link.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most websites have some commercial aspect. I do not consider the link as being an advertisement - it is a resource and, for your information, it produces very few Client's compared to the large number of people that use it. It really is somewhat naive to think that you will get someone who truly knows the subject to provide a points calculator (and keep it updated with changes in law) and then simply place it on it's own little website without any commercial aspect simply to make people here feel happy - it is simply not going to happen... yet you would prefer people are without this resource. I truly do not understand what on earth the problem is. Spooky69 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I thought it may be wise to try and make the point in a more concise manner. It seems to me that the only people objecting to the link are those that have no real interest in the subject. Those that are interested in HSMP will benefit from the link and be interested in the free resource it provides. A link to the UK Home Office is deemed to be acceptable even though it is confusing for many and even though they charge quite high fees themselves (commercial?). This seems unreasonable and I think the reason for removing the link is fundamentally flawed. I see this as a point of principle, having spent time writing the article, hence the energy and time being spent arguing for why the link should be put back. Please also remember that Durova stated that the link could be replaced by someone other than me, but comments by yourself and Cordless Larry would indicate that it would be removed regardless. Spooky69 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That was not the idea at all, but thank you for addressing my points and concerns... Spooky69 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have read through article and the comments above. I myself am not affiliated with any of the companies and personally think that any calculator leading to a commercial website should not be included. I will try to find one online that is free with no commercial purpose or will host one free calculator somewhere. Regarding the legal advice I have added a section detailing the OISC and a link to OISC's website that list all of registered advisers. Feel free to edit or add to it. --Webkami 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, but I genuinely worry about someone outside of this industry trying to put up their own points calculator - updates and changes will no doubt be integrated immediately to reflect current policies on an ongoing basis? In my view, opinions expressed by those without serious experience (industry experience) are more often than not simply opinions, assumptions or worse, and certainly when it comes to matters of law. For an encyclopedic site I would think that facts are of more value. I would suggest that no link is better than a link that either is, or will eventually be, inaccurate. Spooky69 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, the OISC already have a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Immigration_Services_Commissioner - this asks for links from relevant articles to be added. No idea how to do that, but it would seem to me that the legal section would be better served by a brief sentence and a link to the OISC wiki page. Perhaps CordlessLarry or someone else might know how to correctly apply the required edit. Spooky69 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This was NOT a cut and paste job. I have been in the immigration sector for many years and I wrote that article by hand, with some parts such as earnings points tables copied from MY website, which I WROTE. It is also worth noting that the previous content was incorrect in many areas and substantially out of date. This is NOT a copyright infringement in any way whatsoever. Even aside from this, the article was an expert interpretation of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION and NOT simply copied. I spent a lot of my time writing that article, which is an area of significant interest for a large number of people. Additionally, I do not view the link to the HSMP points calculator on my site as being linkspam - it is an extremely useful tool for people interested in this visa and does not require anything from the user - no personal details are required for the purposes of self-assessment on what was the first points calculator on the internet under the new HSMP rules. This was updated on the day of the changes being made and it should be seen as a useful resource that will always be kept up to date.Spooky69 11:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT TO THE ABOVE: It would appear that someone has over-written the article that I wrote with copied content from the Home Office. From the links contained in this, which do not go to the official UK Home Office website, I am guessing this was Cordless Larry. I have not read the article carefully as yet, but I hope that he is not providing any 'advice' or insight in the article, as he has already shown above that he does not have the knowledge to do so. No offence intended, merely an observation. So, what was wrong with the previous article that I wrote and why has it been over-written with text that does have a copyright attached? Spooky69 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] as this is a nice encyplopedia version of the article that doesn't contain copyrighted material. johnSLADE (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The comments above are appreciated and possibly I was a little quick to jump. Simply put, this is a subject about which I feel strongly. And yes Cordless Larry, I should have checked thoroughly before making any comments - I should probably also have not left my previous comments there with a strikethrough. How does the article get taken back to a previous revision? Spooky69

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)[reply]

Article tone[edit]

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)[reply]

Excessive detail?[edit]

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)[reply]

OK, since there haven't been any objections I'll summarise the scheme details. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, whoever wrote this article is a complete idiot. How can you write an article on visas while leaving out the most important detail, the duration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.229.112 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highly_Skilled_Migrant_Programme&oldid=1202850464"