Talk:SkyWay Group

Speedy deletion nomination of SkyWay Group

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as SkyWay Group, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Владимир Малафей (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay business management and marketing practices

The SkyWay group article needs another section after the introduction which discusses in a little more detail the actual techniques used by the SkyWay companies to fund their projects. There are already lots of descriptions of them in the references we have now, particularly the Lithuanian and Italian article which is mentioned above and the complete translation of which can found at the user:Zaxander talk page..

• [1] negotiation and planning - where MoU are signed; no technology has been actually built anwhere
• [2] Crowdfunding - sales made usually through selling shares via the internet.
• [3] Other forms of marketing - stocks are sold by getting a groups of enthusiastic everyday people to buy empty assets which they are promised to get lofty returns sometime in the future. In fact in a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme they can only get money if they find other investors, which seems to be clearly the way SkyWay companies works. It is certainly the business model they adopt.
• [4]

Many of these questions can be answered with the verifiable references we already have. But we are left with a couple of unresolved questions which could be described in a conclusion. For example: Where does the money actually go? They haven't built anything yet. Do they actually ever intend to build anything? All or most of the money is used to pay management and then pay the investors (if they manage to find other investors). Sometimes they say the intention is to use the money on the EcoTechPark in Belarus but we need verifiable references to prove this. From the Indian and Lithuanian example, corruption has taken place where government officials are paid to start negotiations (which perhaps are never intended to take place). If they make it appear like they are making arrangements, clients would more easily part with their money. It seems from the Lithuanian example that they paid out bribes to get the governments of different to start negotiating with them. I don't actually think it matters – as long as it appears they are doing something. Of course at the moment these are all suppositions based on what it appears from the information we already have. Now we just need to collect what we have together and find new references which can help us describe this aspect of the SkyWay group. Include any ideas or links below to verifiable references Introduction Negotiation and financial management Crowdfunding Marketing techniques Conclusion

Include any references you can find or ideas about changing these titles or including different ones.

Neutrality

This article was probably created by the inventor of technology or somebody related to it. There are almost no criticism, a lot of self sources. Technology is only in the development state for now. The way of fund raising for developing this system uses controversial MLM (pyramid selling) marketing strategy and has some attributes of frauding (unrealistic promises, high company capitalization etc.) Russian article was deleted and I believe that at least the neutrality and criticism sections have to be added to this article. Dron007 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently there is almost no links to SkyWay sites and self-published materials. Is it time to remove Self-published template message? Dron007 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

I dont know how to delete this article following all the rules of Wikipedia, but String Transport aka SkyWay is a scam. That's why this article published only in english version of Wikipedia - it has very dubious reputation in Russia, Belarus and many other countries (in some countries SkyWay is illegal). All references are made to self-published sources, there is no critics at all. This company is using Ponzi scheme to 'crowdfund' or 'crowdinvest' the 'future transportaion system'. There is no MVP, there is no business plan, but SkyWay evaluates its intellectual property at 500 billion (!) dollars. Etc. 46.53.178.222 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect sir the main website rws-systems.com does in fact contain a disclosure stating:

These materials have been prepared by Global Transport Investments Inc. (the “Company”). These materials are strictly confidential to the recipient, may not be distributed to the press or any other person, and may not be reproduced in any form, in whole or in part.

The Company has included its own estimates, assessments, adjustments and judgments in preparing certain market information herein, which have not been verified by an independent third party. Market information included herein is, therefore, unless otherwise attributed exclusively to a third party source, to a certain degree subjective. While the Company believes that its own estimates, assessments, adjustments and judgments are reasonable and that the market information prepared by the Company appropriately reflects the industry and the markets in which it operates, there is no assurance that the Company’s own estimates, assessments, adjustments and judgments are the most appropriate for making determinations relating to market information.

Use of this material from the SkyWay Group site on the Internet is only permissible on condition of obligatory specification of the link to the source of publication: http://rsw-systems.com/disclaimer-en © http://rsw-systems.com/

One of the partners[1] of Global Transport Investments Inc. also provides a disclosure (list of documents):

Disclaimer

These materials are prepared by FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP LIMITED (hereinafter - the "Company"). This is strictly confidential and intended solely for the recipient, and may not be spread through the press or transferred to third parties, as well as reproduced in any form, in whole or in part.

Some marketing information included in this material has been prepared by the Company based on their own estimates, assumptions, adjustments and judgments that have not been verified by independent third parties. Thus, information included in this marketing material is to some extent subjective, the material has been compiled by the Company reflecting personal opinions, adjustments and decisions, that have not been verified by third parties. The Company believes that the assessments, adjustments and decisions provided in this material, are reasonable, and the provided marketing information reflects the situation of the industry and the markets in which it operates; at the same time there is no assurance that the assessments, adjustments and decisions made by the Company are the most appropriate basis for drawing conclusions in respect of the marketing information.

The use of the material from SkyWay Group companies’ websites in the Internet is permitted only with mandatory placement of references to the publication of the source: http://skyway.capital/files/disclaimer-en.pdf © http://skyway.capital/

Warning about Risks

In order to help you understand the risks of investing in stocks, you are requested to carefully read the information below. Please diversify your investments. The necessity of diversification when investing. Diversification involves the distribution of your investments among different types of investments with different risks in order to reduce the overall risk. However it does not reduce all types of risks. Diversification is an integral part of investing. Investors should invest only a portion of their available funds and the balance of its investment in safer, more liquid assets. The risks of investing in equity. Investment in shares (also known as share capital) does not involve a regular investment income, unlike mini-bonds, which offer regularly paid interest. Please consider the following specific risks of investing in stocks: Loss of Investment. Most businesses initially fail or do not expand as planned, therefore investment in this kind of business can be associated with significant risk. You might lose all or part of your investment. You need to invest only the amount you are willing to lose, and gather a diversified portfolio to spread the risk and increase the likelihood of the total income from the investment of capital. If the business in which you invest, fails, the company will not return your investment. Rare payment of dividends. Dividends are payments made by businesses to its shareholders from the profits of the company. This means that you are unlikely to experience the profitability of the investments until you can sell your shares. Profits tend to be reinvested in the business to drive growth and increase the value of the shares. Split or reduction of the nominal value. Any investment in shares may be subject to reduction of nominal value in the future. Split occurs when the company issues new shares. The split affects all existing shareholders who do not purchase newly issued shares. As a result, the stake of existing shareholders reduces proportionally, or "is split", - it has an impact on a number of things, including voting, dividend rate and cost.

Investors are obliged to fulfill their own tax obligations, guided by the legislation of their country of residence. Investors should determine and take into account the possible restrictions on the investment by the jurisdiction that applies to them.

The use of the material from SkyWay Group companies’ websites in the Internet is permitted only with mandatory placement of references to the publication of the source: http://skyway.capital/files/risks_warning-en.pdf © http://skyway.capital/

I've been optimistic about similar project (SkyTran) but of course time takes time.[2] What is possible may be allowed to happen.[3] Buyer beware is a fact of the market in general, even in the cases where the company is not the fault.[4]

The general public (the 99%) is often advised by their financial advisors (if they have one) not to get overly involved in high risk ventures. These may include Kickstarter, Indiegogo, biotechs, cryptocurrencies, private R&D firms, Robinhood, real estate crowfunding like RealtyShares, Fundrise, etc.. This is expressed notably clearly in the case the different rights of accredited investors (~ the 1%) vs. the middle and lower classes. However, as we are in the information age and we can be more efficiently informed (or misinformed), the middle classes and lower classes of countries now have greater ability than before to be informed about higher risk - higher potential gain/loss opportunities that some regulators wish were restricted only the very financial elites (whether their intentions may be good [protection of the lower and middle class from bankruptcy] or bad [restrict class mobility]).

I for one believe that any investor should employ common sense, and those who do not employ common sense to difficult information as needed are certainly not entitled to the privilege that a successful investment should provide. Sincerely, ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The business plan can be found here: Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd Business Plan 2014 Presented by Victor Baburin https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byz9kjE4StmkVmlJZ2tUSkM3NGc/edit (linked to by the website http://www.rswskyway.com/english-page/). ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to also note that the YouTube video output is impressively frequent for a transporation technology company:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-NcJ4R7_V8W_3nVkCAswbQ/videos

Their "Minimum Viable Product" is more evident now in 2017 than it was a couple years ago back when their construction in Maryina Gorka had not started. Surely apprehension and risk is greater at the times when there lacks a functioning prototype. Now it is different, with anchors and track have been laid and rolling stock has been attached, not to mention the extremely transparent footage revealing construction operations, engineers, and networking with officials in power to affect implementation of transportation services on public coffers. Communication of such intimate information involving company operations and interactions with officials, produced and uploaded almost every other day, not to mention the publicly available engineering documents [5][6] should also be considered in addition to the overall risky (and sometimes sketchy) nature of venture capitalism in general. Of course, one must be careful in adding too much "positive" information in the article, per the rules of WP:NPOV. Duly-supported positive alarmism is unfortunately not usually appropriate for a general reference encyclopedia. But it is what it is. ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

To quote the article on Ponzi scheme:

Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒn.zi/; also a Ponzi game)[1] is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate investments or business activities.

The difference between a Ponzi scheme and referral commissions is that referral commissions can be a percentage of the "revenue/investment" acquired less than 100%. In contrast, for Ponzi scheme to work, the amount promised to be paid in "returns" (which are really promised "commissions") exceeds the "revenue/investment", which of course is unsustainable without any real business to support it.

Now the only way to really know for sure how funds are allocated would be to do an internal audit of the company. It is irresponsible to insinuate fraud without concrete evidence. With concrete evidence is of course an entirely different matter.

I recommend the following webpage (http://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/skyway-capital-review-russian-transport-funding-22-daily-rois/) on more details on this matter, which by the way is logical enough to concede that the comp plan alone does not prove a Ponzi Scheme, although while it does not entirely rule it out. It is understandable that some may accuse a company of fraud with or without full knowledge of the details. Sincerely, ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 01:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is based on accusations against SkyWay Group. There is no actual information on the operation of the company. The article consists only of accusations, it seems suspicious. There is a lot of information on the technology company developed in previous version, now it became an “attack page”Eva Grun (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct Eva. The media has a bias aligned with the need to attract readers. Good news can do this, bad news more so. So good news is often filtered out by the media. Furthermore, Wikipedia has standards in some cases that are quite assymetric. Accusations usually don't require much official validation from competent authorities or formal communcations from the scientific academia. However when it comes to the technological merits of new transport the media cannot credibly confirm or deny since they lack in-house ability to judge claims on technological merit. When the media reports about doubt about a technology, they do so without showing engineering calculations demonstrating the level of feasibility of new technology. Also, critics of SkyWay who do have an engineering background clearly do not make it their job to find out how string transport can work. Rules of thumb and first impressions are generally employed by them, since when dealing with known technology it is not usually necessary to question fundamental intuitions of what works. As such, we do not see scientific works published by critics arguing against string transport. Instead, we have only "conclusions" from experts who, unlike school children in math courses, do not disclose their derivation. Furthermore, they make no requisite effort to solve the engineering challenges associated with innovative technology, nor do they have any attempts to manufacture an accurate physical model of SkyWay to support their criticism. Combine that with the basic need of innovative companies to protect intellectual property and trade secrets in respect to the specific innovations and you have a situation where the Wiki article on SkyWay Group has become completely negative-sided just as what occured for the article on Brilliant Light Power. ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eva_Grun,Most part of the information added to the article is backed by 3rd party sources. We cannot use self-promoted materials from Skyway sites in this article. If you think some information should be added and have reliable sources just add it. But as we have a war of changes now it is better to reach consensus here first.Dron007 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

After the article was changed is based on accusations against a non-existent company. Some of the accusations against existing companies, that are not actually in SkyWay Group, are outdated and refuted (Lithuania). The article is about non-existent company, there is no information on what the company produces. The accusations against it are obviously ambiguous. --Владимир Малафей (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war from newly-created account is not constructive. If you think we need to provide more sources for the connection of Anatoly Yunitskiy with Skyway group of companies let's discuss it. See separate section(s)Dron007 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem of distinguishing the science as opposed to the scam

STRING THEORY is a set of theoretical ideas connected to a complex financial scam. The fact that it has not received anything more than proposals from questionable scam-based funding outside of Russia should ring warning bells. They have never received more than cursory application outside of Russia. If people want to learn about this questionable theory a link could be included to the sites that reference it but warnings have to be made about both the questionability of its actual realization and the fact that these theoretical ideas have been rejected as impractical and dangerous. The current links to fake YouTube films and the SkyWay website still present are both laughable and frightening.

PLEASE NOTE: Individual citizens are told that their money will be invested in lofty engineering projects. As a part of pyramid scheme-like meetings, everyday people who would never be required to fund a national transportation project are encouraged to invest their hard-earned money in complex tax-free financial schemes for a business which has little more than a postal address in London. The following website demonstrates this danger but it is only one of many warnings about scams connected to this concept: https://www.fsma.be/en/warnings/first-skyway-invest-group-limited-skyway-capital https://www.fsma.be/nl/warnings/first-skyway-invest-group-limited-skyway-capital

Unfortunately a cursory search for 'Skyway' and 'String Theory' in the Google search engine presents a lot of sites with questionable links that attempt to confuse the matter, some posted by users who have already invested money and are still convinced that if they find other investors that they will receive real returns. Some are undoubtedly planted as either ambiguous distractors to the real financial dangers of investment or are outright lies.

Cursory reading of the ambiguous language style of the English article could suggest that this engineering is more than a proposal that has received application and anyone taking a cursory examination (or non English-speakers who find this site) could easily get the wrong idea about the complex ideas connected to projects that they are ruthlessly encouraged to waste their money on. To make it clear: apart from two unsuccessful testing projects in the Russian federation and Belarus, there have been no realisations of any type of public transport system that vaguely resembles the project suggested in the Skyway 'String Theory' scam.

Unfortunately the most confusing aspect is the separation of the theory created by Yunitsky the engineer from the scam itself which supposedly funds it. I mean, Yunitsky seems to be a real engineer who has made a real theory that appears to be ecofriendly and scientifically valid. But even if the theory in and of itself has validity, the engineer should be doing his best to distance his name from the scam. The first references you find on a google search should include detailed information distancing his STRING TRANSPORT project from its extremely dubious funding attempts or at least explaining how they are connected. I can only find references to sites demonstrating how much money you can make from it. Who knows: maybe Yunitsky himself is a victim of the scam? But the awful fact that you can't find any denials or explanations suggests that he is either indifferent to or actually profiting from the abuse.

I really encourage valid contributors to Wikipedia with a scientific background to peruse this article and provide real scientific references supporting the science and to help differentiate it from the dangerous scam.

In conclusion this article should not be removed. There has to be some objective source so that people can see what they are actually investing their money in; at the same time if it is a good idea that deserves further development then that has to be clearly distinguished from the complete falsity of the scam and the separation of real people from their hard-earned money. Even with the changes I made it's still painfully ambiguous. Not being a scientist or an engineer I'm hardly in a position to validly question the dubious science.

Please help.

Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The RSW Systems website lists Yunitsky as "President of SkyWay Group of Companies" and his personal website puts a strong emphasis on the "public funding" model of the company. The connection is clear: The Skyway technology, the Skyway company and Yunitsky are one.

There is practically no independent coverage of the technology itself, which seems to have gone through a radical transformation over the years from a gondola lift to a monorail. Most of the sources cover the alleged scam or presentations at trade shows, so our article content should reflect that. I favor removing anything that is sourced solely to the Skyway company or those connected with it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Connection between the engineer Yunitsky and the SkyWay company group

Here is some information from a Russian source on the real connection between Yunitsky, the SkyWay group of companies and the different forms of theory used to defend the financing techniques they use. I found it on a site discussing the way this crowdfunding works. It concludes that it is a pyramid scheme. The problem is, however, that it appears that there are some companies that are not directed by Yunitsky himself such as 'SkyWay Capital' and this is confusing. There are users who are suggesting that the SkyWay finding has nothing to do with the scientific theory which is valid in an of itself and is deserving of ... more funding. This is a link to the page which includes a description of the financial techniques and a complex discussion by economists of the problematic and illegal nature of the way these companies attempt to get funding: https://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/skyway-capital-review-russian-transport-funding-22-daily-rois/

On this page I found a source who describes the complex history of Yunitsky and his schemes which date back more than fourty years. Some of it is anecdotal but links to real sources are included:

"Sorry for my English just want to share info from Russian Internet collected by many people in forum topic having hundreds of pages: mmgp.ru/showthread.php?t=247224&page=108. Maybe you don’t have access to many materials about Yunitsky and his company, maybe they are not translated to English but there a lot of them in Russian. I have to say that it would be very risky to have business with this company. Here are some facts. Yunitsky works on this idea almost 40 years and still don’t have working prototype (only slow and unstable one). They gather money for this project using MLM system which looks like Ponzi scheme: while company doesn’t earn money there are people who already raise money on it inviting other people. That’s why there is so much spam and lie about potential profit of this company. Yunitsky had some conflict with his previous partners and there are some judicial proceedings related to it. Skyway company tried to work with Lithuanian government but they interrupted it suspecting Yunitsky in fraud. Here you can read about it: http://bnn-news.com/genuine-investment-project-boondoggle-scheme-lithuania-national-security-threat-119828. There were testing area in Ozerki several years ago but there was also some conflict and the work was terminated. Yunitsky is known to ask money for his projects from governments, municipalities, politics but he still doesn’t show working system ready for usage. At the same time in one of his business plans he set his salary as about 12 thousands dollars per month (not bad!). He now gathers money from people promising them taking part in his intellectual property which was valued in 400 billions dollars. I can continue, there are many facts of lie, many doubtful engeneering ideas, but it is hard for me to explain it in English. I have to say that I am pretty sure that his project is unrealistic, unprofitable and maybe even danger for potential passengers. There is no certification for this transport, there were no tests in real life. They are just looking for places where they will be able to test this project. Hope you would think carefully before having any contracts with this man and his company. Here you can read investor’s memorandum and see offshore scheme: files.z-domansky.eu/200000342-1e6161f5d8/Memorandum EN.pdf

So Anatoly is not just guilty by association. He directs these companies that use crowdfunding and other dubious sources of funding. Any additional companies that do not use his name but profit from the same technology are the ones guilty by association, but we have no proof these companies are not involved with Yunitsky as well.

Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

Recent changes have resulted in the total removal of Yunitskiy's name from the opening paragraph. ANATOLY YUNITSKIY, however, is mentioned in almost every verifiable source. He attends all SkyWay events. He invented the technology. According to verifiable sources he is the business-man who founded the company and owns the shares. He is pictured in all international photos which involved the signing of contracts. If a verifiable source does not mention him personally, it doesn't mention anyone else either. It seems fairly unambiguous to assume that Yunitskiy is very much involved in some way with all SkyWay projects. Furthermore, it is misleading to not include his name in any description of either his companies or his technology. I suggest the opening paragraph begin with the words "The SkyWay Group refers to a group of companies associated with the inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy". If you disagree, please explain why below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with that, unless sources clearly discuss the association. What we know is that the "Skyway Group is promoting a technology by Anatoly Yunitskiy".--DreamLinker (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yunitskiy writes that he is a president of Skyway group of compantie on his personal sites [7][8] and it is written in official site of RSW Systems[9], there is his signature on such-called "certificate of shares".Dron007 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe we should rely on good news websites, instead of the company's website or his personal website.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's look here[10]. It is said about "company and its shareholders Anatoly Yunicky and Nadezhda Kosareva", and referring to the Bank of Lithuania: "Rail Skyway Systems had distributed shares of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd., a UK-registered firm headed and owned by Yunicky". So he (with his wife) is definitely the owner of the company, not just an engineer.Dron007 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is another source: [11]. "Junicki’s commercial schemes, according to several Lithuanian prominent analysts, like Swedbank economist Nerijus Mačiulis, are simply elaborate scams dazzling possible investors with supposedly lucrative profit from holding stake in an array of London-based, ostensibly large-scale asset companies. «Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ldt.», «American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.», « African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. », «Australian&Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd » and, set purposely to Lithuania, «Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.» are a few to be mentioned. All these companies’ declared capital reportedly stands at a whopping 235.1 billion British pounds, which would put Junicki, holding a 10-percent stake, on the Forbes’ 10 world richest men list."Dron007 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Almost every single verifiable resource already mentioned specifically refers to Yunitskiy. If they don't mention him they don't mention anyone else either. In most references, Yunitskiy is mentioned in every paragraph. I've checked all the references. It is misleading to not include him in the first paragraph. I've included this as a separate heading below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

---

String transport → SkyWay Group – This article is primarily about the company, not the technology. Reliable sources discuss the company, its investment schemes and overall transport system proposals with practically no coverage given to the "string theory" or "string transport" prestressed rail technology concept. The outfit operates under a number of different names so "RSW Systems", "SkyWay Capital" "SkyWay Group of Companies" or simply "SkyWay" would also be good candidates. –dlthewave ☎ 18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• SupportThanks for these changes and the great observation that the only reliable articles concern not the technology but the extremely difficult to pin-down company. Removal of the obviously questionable scientific information is a really good step in the right direction.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

• Support Thank you so much. Actually I was thinking of starting a rename request myself. I spend some times looking through google scholar and I cannot find any high quality peer reviewed works about "String transport". It is obvious that the article is about Skyway group and their project, so it is perfectly fine to rename it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree it is a good idea. There is no such technology as String Transport (just prototypes/concepts). It is related to Yunitsky only who is not just an engineer with dounbtful reputation but is mainly a businessman, owner of Unisky corp (Seychelles) which itself owns ERSS holdings (Virgin Islands), GTI company (Virgin Islands), Belorussian company, etc. and protects Unitsky's interests. Now information about MoU with UAE is widely spread and people will look for explanations with "Skyway" and "Skyway Greentech Company" terms, not a "string transport". It is even doubtful that strings (prestressed rails and cables) are used in their prototypes and they have other types of structures where simple, not prestressed cables are used instead without rails. So it is more about business and the ways of raising money, not a specific technology. Dron007 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons that I suggested a move from Hydrino theory → Blacklight Power, Inc. back in 2009 (10 years ago!). ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 03:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Lithuanian SkyWay Scandal

The scandal in Lithuania is complex and deserves a responsible description in the text. Unverifiable references and misleading text has just been removed. In an effort to do the issue justice I read the four verifiable articles, including the one in Lithuanian which I translated with Google. All the articles say pretty much the same thing. Here's a summary of what I understood (most of it was never mentioned or was deliberately distorted in the article): [1] Officials in the municipality of Siauliai started negotiating with SkyWay in 2014 and as such land was designated for use near a NATO based somewhere in the municipality; [2] The whole affair became embroiled in a corruption scandal when about 360 thousand euros was transferred by SkyWay into somebody's bank account; [3] Because of this the Bank of Lithuania started an investigation and the deal was prematurely concluded; [4] Eventually the prosecutor's office decided that although they could not prosecute the SkyWay group for being a pyramid scheme, that their methods of financing were highly suspect and for this reason Lithuania should have nothing to do with the company. Before recent adjustment, the second paragraph seemed to include a lot of unnecessary information justifying the actions of SkyWay by emphasizing the fact that they were exonerated from being a pyramid scheme. But that is hardly relevant here: even if that's true the Bank of Lithuania still started an investigation, found that the company was involved in shady practices and stopped the deal because of the illegal sale of shares. Although the investigation eventually ended and one of their conclusions was that they couldn't actually prosecute the company for the specifics of a pyramid scheme, this hardly exonerates the company from wrong-doing. They go out of their way to emphasise the fact that the investigation was stopped on May 26th 2017 and that this was because of their decision that there was no pyramid scheme. This is simply not true. I can't actually find this specific date anywhere in the four verifiable references and it hardly seems important. But I've concluded the paragraph with a sentence stating that the prosecutor's office decided to stop its investigations in May 2017. In the light of this information the whole story should be rewritten and told in a consequent fashion. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I translated the Lithuanian article into English.

Bank of Lithuania: signs of fraud in the activities of A. Yunitskiy promising “air trains”

By Šarūnas Černiauskas, www.DELFI.lt [DELFI is the primary news portal in Lithuania] September 18 2014

https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/lietuvos-bankas-oro-traukinius-zadancio-a-junickio-veikloje-sukciavimo-pozymiai.d?id=65880462

You can view this translation at the user:Zaxander talk page. It specifically implicates that Yunitskiy founded the various companies in the SkyWay Groups in London and Lithuania. It is also very specific about him being the primary shareholder. Furthermore it mentions him in every single paragraph. It hardly mentions the technology itself. Its source of information is Vaidas Cibas, the 'Head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority'. The research seems to be very thorough. They conclude that they will share this information widely among international supervisory authorities "so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities".

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander

• Lithuanian article on the SkyWay scandal "String Transport Contract at the Centre of a Scandal"

http://www.snaujienos.lt/miesto-gyvenimas/30184-sutartis-dl-styginio-transporto-skandalo-centre.html

Looks like it's a governmental publication of Siauliu region. Anyone want to verify and translate it? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• If we need more reliable sources acout this case here they are: [12][13][14] (about the reasons of project cancelling) [15] (latest news, rejection to pay $10 million compensation to Rail Skyway System). Dron007 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The SkyWay controversy in Sicily: Italian article summary and translation

Here follows a summary and complete translation of the verifiable Italian article concerning a project in the Sicilian city of Messina and the shady history of the Skyway group, dated 20 July 2018:

SKYWAY the flying tram company which has never realized a project

http://www.letteraemme.it/2018/07/20/sky-way-lazienda-del-tram-volante-che-non-ha-mai-realizzato-un-progetto/

The primary purpose of the article is to suggest why any collaboration between the SkyWay group and the large Sicilian city of Messina would be inadvisable.

In an effort to do this the article details the history of the SkyWay group companies, the involvement of Kunitsky as director, the controversies in Lithuania and India, their questionable use of crowdfunding, and information about the banning of these practices by CONFOB – an official Italian government organisation.

Concise summary of the facts

Here is a concise summary of the most important facts in the article:

• Anatoly Yunitsky is the director of the SkyWay group which has companies registered under a wide variety of business names in London, Minsk and the Virgin Islands (a well-known tax haven).
• SkyWay has never realised an actual project anywhere. Existing proof consists of computer-generated images and a demonstration model in Belarus.
• It’s currently illegal for any of the SkyWay group to sell shares in Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia and the United States.
• There were many other SkyWay companies around the world promoting this technology which have since been dissolved. Current directors of the company deny having been involved with any of them.
• India and Lithuania have been involved in shady financial dealings with the SkyWay group. In 2017 a proposed project in Lithuania was suspected of financial fraud through the illegal sale of shares, and was cancelled. In May 2017, however, the investigations were stopped after they decided they couldn’t prosecute the company.
• In 2007 and 2018 specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering gave a negative assessment of this technology. In 2010 a project was cancelled in Australia before the planning started.
• The companies have applied controversial ‘crowdfunding’ techniques since 2014. They make lofty claims to individual citizens and promise extremely lucrative returns at some unspecified time in the future if you invest your money today.
• In January 2018 The Italian Companies and Exchange Commission CONFOB – a governmental organisation – banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay shares in Italy.
• There are precedents in the past for questionable investments of foreigners in Italian infrastructure, including Indian and Arab investors whose projects were suspended.
• The mayor of Messina has been discussing possible collaborations with the SkyWay group as part of his electoral campaign.

Complete Translation

[The English translation of this article can be found on the user Zaxander talk page. It's a very long article, and seeing that I've included above all the major facts from this verifiable source, it seemed to me to unnecessary to confuse the talkpage with unnecessary information that can be checked elsewhere. In any case to change the article you can use any of the above-listed facts to help you. Believe me it's hard to find reliable sources on this subject because there is so much misinformation].Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

FACT CHECK: Did the Czech Republic issue a warning of financial irregularities in 2016?

Here's an official notice from the Czech government that Eurasian Rail Skyway systems - a member of the SkyWay group - is selling shares there without a license. The notice says that "Public offer of securities of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding [is] without prospectus." Here's a translation of the wording of the warning:

The Czech National Bank informs the public that the investment in the securities of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding, ISIN VGG322291094, is publicly offered in the Czech Republic without the Czech National Bank, or the Supervisory Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36c of the Capital Market Undertakings Act another Member State of the European Union, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 36f of the Capital Market Undertakings Act, a prospectus for that security has been approved and published.

Can anyone confirm this warning? A link is included below. It is dated 2016 which is years before other warnings issued later and which are already included in the article. If someone can confirm this I'll include information about this warning in the 'other countries' section on financial irregularities. http://www.cnb.cz/cs/spotrebitel/ochrana_spotrebitele/upozorneni/upozorneni_euroasian_rail_skyway.html –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That is absolutely realistic. Memorandum of investor was issued in 2015 or earlier and companies like Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Ltd (ERSS), GTI are mentioned there. Now they have updated version but you can find there documents dated 2013-2015 (pp.55 and later). [16] Dron007 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I included a warning from the state government about the unregulated sale of shares of this SkyWay company. Do you think this 'warning' is realistic? What on earth do you actually mean? You included reference to an entirely unverifiable SkyWay self-published document, so I don't see how this can help prove a governmental warning from a Czech source. It sounds like you either misunderstood the English translation or you want to make an entirely different point.

Not sure what you mean. I though that by "it seems hard to believe that this could be true in 2016" you doubt that there were Skyway companies in 2016. That's why I provided a document that shows that these companies have been existing since 2013 or so. Some of them may be checked in official sites. Need to check. Dron007 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm going to change the wording so it's clearer what I'm looking for. The talk page is to check facts before including them in the article; new issues should be checked first for accuracy by other users. I found the reference to a specific regulation from the Czech Republic warning people not to invest in one of the SkyWay group companies because they had no permission to sell shares there in 2016. Other countries like Japan and Lithuania issued warnings years later. But I translated this regulation directly from Czech with Google translate. What if I was wrong? What if I implicated the Czech government in a scandal they were not involved with? It would absolutely ruin my reputation which is already not great because I've included so much passion in my warnings that SkyWay is a scam (which I regret deeply in retrospect). So to be specific, if you know a Czech person who can find out if what I found on the internet is actually true, that would be great. But any additional references you find would be appreciated - and in fact it's great that you take the time to post here at all and keep an eye on what people are doing and I thank you for it. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Although the document you include is unusable for anything in itself and doesn't have anything to do with the Czech warning it does provide a lot of information about the different companies and where they are registered. Thanks also for your support to the name change support with interesting arguments. Post any valid references you think I should see on your talk page or here and I'll take a look at them - it doesn't matter which language they're in. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposals for CONSTRUCTION content and references

After the section on "Safety and Evaluation" there was a description of the 'Construction' of the 'SkyWay Group' technology as it was constructed in Russia (Moscow) and is still apparently being constructed in Belarus. Unfortunately all of the references were to instagram posts, youtube films, maps, pdfs of images uploaded to commons and propaganda articles so we had to completely remove it.

But we do want to learn about the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Marina Gorka (about 70km from Minsk) and possibly the deconstructed project in Moscow as well that was negatively assessed and taken apart. But only references that are verifiable can be considered. Being in existence is not reason enough to include it an article just because, well, Google maps says it exists and so do you. Someone has to have written about it objectively.

Please don't make proposals that include YouTube films, photos or contracts. Verifiable third-party links will be translated and assessed and new sections to the page will be included once there is consensus among users that the information is valid. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

New section on construction was removed because the following string theory article in a 'stringer' publication was unverifiable as far as I can see. Please make concise proposals which include third-party references which can be translated and assessed by informed users. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

http://stringer-news.com/publication.mhtml?Part=46&PubID=12796

I checked and translated most of the text of the 'stringer' article: it doesn't actually mean anything. The article addresses itself as an opinion column. The title translates to something like "clowns or modernizers?". It's filled with flowery language which talks about the joy of invention and the great Russian spirit fighting against the odds. And that despite everything Yunitksiy's 'string transport' has a chance of conquering the market. This doesn't turn up until later in the article. It doesn't actually try to prove or demonstrate anything in particular. Why anyone would use this as an academic reference remains a mystery to me. Are they just hoping that no one will actually read it? −Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is SkyWay implicated in projects in the United Arab Emirates?

An unidentified user says that the following links are specifically about SkyWay's companies involvement with 'Sky Pod' projects in the United Arab Emirates. Thanks for posting this suspicion here and not changing the article with this information. Until now I haven't been able to find that there is a link between Sky Pods and SkyWay, but I haven't looked very hard. Can anyone else confirm this? -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are the links:

• "Dubai's transport authority has unveiled its Sky Pod project, a futuristic mobility system which will require less power and infrastructure to operate."

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/409140-dubai-sky-pods-the-rtas-vision-of-transport-in-the-future

• "The sky pods were on display at the annual World Government Summit..."

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/dubai/soon-you-can-go-around-dubai-using-sky-pods-1

• https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/sheikh-mohammed-hamdan-try-150kmph-sky-pod-in-dubai/ar-BBTqY2G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.219.110 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On RTA site is said that "Dubai’s Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Skyway Greentech Company" and there is Yunitsky on photo so, yes SkyWay's companies are involved. Here is the link:

https://www.rta.ae/wps/portal/rta/ae/home/news-and-media/all-news/NewsDetails/mou-with-skyway-greentech-to-develop-sky-pod-network

I cannot open it but it is indexed by Google and opens through Google Translate.

Here is another source saying the same (news site): http://meconstructionnews.com/33441/rta-signs-mou-with-skyway-for-sky-pod-suspended-transport-network

There is also a video where Yunitsky says that UAE building company plans to finish the construction of the first road in April in Sharja. Another project is in Dubai but there is no information about terms. Just FYI. Dron007 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much; well spotted. If even one of the references checks out, 'the United Arab Emirates' can be included in paragraph 3 of the introduction with the other countries that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the SkyWay group. I don't know where else though because at least according to these references, they haven't been caught out doing something irregular yet! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The RTA reference really does look like a verifiable one. The link opens fine for me and seems like one that comes from the UAE and not from SkyWay. But these people are good at creating misleading links and this whole subject has got made worried about making a mistake. Can someone else confirm this and if deemed valid include it? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for these links - I used RTA reference to add the UAE to the third paragraph. Other references may useful in the development of the body of the article as it is later extended when we find more references on their marketing techniques. Kind regards -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How about these links?

1) "...The vehicles, invented by Mr Yunitskiy’s company Skyway and displayed at the World Government Summit in Dubai yesterday, would move high above the ground along a specially designed network of overpasses"

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/abu-dhabi-to-dubai-by-sky-pod-summit-offers-glimpse-of-future-transport-1.824099#4

2) Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid takes a seat in Dubai's new Sky Pods (with photos):

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/sheikh-mohammed-bin-rashid-takes-a-seat-in-dubai-s-new-sky-pods-1.824537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.219.110 (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for bringing up this issue and providing us with so many sources. Because of these references I've included the UAE as one of the countries in the 'Unrealized projects' of the article. The RTA article states that in February 2019 'Skyway Greentech Company' signed an MoU with Dubai's RTA. This company will build 'Sky Pods' there. Yunitskiy himself is pictured in the photo signing this deal. It seems fairly unambiguous that 'Skyway Greentech Company' is one of the SkyWay Group companies. Other articles confirm this same information. The conclusion is the 'Skyway Greentch Company' is without ambiguity one of the SkyWay Group. Unfortunately it doesn't actually say this anywhere (yet). Of course, the SkyWay company websites refers to the 'Skyway Greentech Company' as their own. But this website is an unverifiable source. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• In the light of all these references, also, it seems like we should probably include the 'SkyPóds' as one of the test sites even if it has been deconstructed and even if it was used as marketing rather than actual demonstration. It seems, after all, that they did build something else somewhere. I'll check the references we already have above for discussion of the technological park but include any new references to any external sources below (that are not published by SkyWay themselves, of course). If there are other places something was actually built for display, it should probably be mentioned. The problem is finding verifiable resources. Press releases from technology fairs don't really mean anything along with publicity photos from events. Critical descriptions of what these projects looked like and how effective they were. In fact, for every technological test site where something was actually built we should probably have a different 'test site' entry with short descriptions from verifiable sources. Start a new discussion thread for each new site but please only start it if you have verifiable references first. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that they presented two model 'sky pod' taxi unicars at a governmental summit, they signed a MoU and they opened a construction site for testing in Sharjah. This is, in any case, what SkyWay themselves had to say about it - how much of this is actually true remains arguable until we have verifiable sources. Also, seeing that not even SkyWay is claiming yet that that they've created a test site, we can't really put one there yet. Just examples of the technology at a Government Summit that don't move anywhere don't actually count as 'testing' I think. Keep posting your results here.

"The SkyWay Innovation Center should become part of a large research and development center located at the Sharjah campus. This will be a showroom for the Middle East region and a functioning transport line for local campuses. Preparations for its construction began in the spring of 2018. The specialists of SkyWay Technologies Co. designed and coordinated with the Arab side all the nuances of the future innovation center and convinced them to leave in the project all the know-how, not familiar to local consultants. At the end of September 2018, the opening of the site for building the Innovation Center took place. If priorities do not change, the first stage will be completed in 2019. In parallel, the designers were creating new models of transport for the local inhospitable climate."

https://www.swigaptraining.com/skyway-skyway-in-the-uae-story-of-success-via-skyway/ Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Dubai Sky Pods is not a test site but a futuristic transportation system. It looks like localization/branding of Skyway. We can see this label and logo printed on Skyway vehicles exhibited in Dubai. Nothing new was built for that. At the same time they are building new test site in Sharja and showed a couple of videos from there. They planned to show something in April 2019 but in the video there was only a basement of some building. I couldn't found any secondary source supporting this information.Dron007 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct English transliteration of Russian names like Yunitskiy

To clear up any ambiguities in the spelling of the Russian name used in this article. The original Cyrillic letters are as follows:

Анатолий Эдуардович Юницкий

So that there is no ambiguity in the article, according to Wikipedia the best transliteration would by Anatoly Eduardovich Yunitskiy. Althouh 'ий' is present in both names, the contrasting spelling can be explained by the fact that -y is used for proper nouns of Russian origin, whereas 'iy' is used for names which don't originate from Russian. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for verifiable sources on EcoTechno Park, Belarus

REQUEST FOR VERIFIABLE SOURCE on the Belarusian EcoTechno Park which demonstrates the technology. Please only included sources which are published by a third party. Photos, YouTube films, brochures, contracts are interesting but cannot be used.

I think that information about their demonstration center - Ecotechno Park - should be added to the article. This is a real physical place in Belarus with many tracks and prototypes of their vehicles.

This place is even indicated on Google maps, and it has 1000+ photos and 100+ reviews:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D0%AD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA+SkyWay/@53.49831,28.0968547,15.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46d9f4e64c40cfed:0x750e0048caf4b365!8m2!3d53.5006277!4d28.1007551?hl=en  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.219.110 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC) 

Yes I think it should be mentioned too and I appreciate you bringing it up here before changing the article. Unfortunately there is no verifiable source currently referenced that actually discusses it in more than an anecdotal way. Believe me, we would like to mention it. It has been talked about in the past but we were forced to remove it not because we didn't want to but because the references were really, really bad. Thanks for the google link but we actually can't use it even if we find a verifiable link. it has to be a reference to a reliable source which actually talks about it. I understand your frustration. The second problem is that the verifiable references cannot simply say that 'someone claims to have invented this place'. It has to actually be a personal documentation of someone who has visited it and provides objective commentary on it; better still that they have performed academically verifiable tests. First or third-party witness accounts, no matter how objective they sound, are not in themselves useable. Posting links maps, photos, brochures and articles from sources who praise it (and are not published in academically recognized sources or by government institutions) in the article is against Wikipedia rules and I appreciate you not doing it. Thanks again –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I found this link. It is a third-party assessment from 2017. At that time they were still trying to get funding for the entire project which was in a 35 hectare property about 70km from Minsk. At the time of writing, they'd only been able to build a small section of it. :::http://belarusfeed.com/transport-of-the-future-video-shows-high-speed-string-vehicle-tested-in-belarus/

I think there should be sections about 1) the essense of the proposed technology and 2) current results. Otherwise the article is quite meaningless. The phrase "the companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors" doesn't look neutral. They raise money for some work, having some ideas. They have some results (models, techno park). Let's provide enough sources for reader to judge if the results meet the expectations. But simply removing both will confuse readers. Dron007 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC) To show what I mean, here are articles in Onliner, popular Belorussian resource (unfortunately they are in Russian only):

• https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2
• https://tech.onliner.by/2019/02/22/skyway-3

Onliner is very sceptical about the technology. Yunitsky even had initiated court process against it after one of the previous articles (there is a link in the latest one). But still you can find short description of the technology as Yunitsky sees it and current state of affairs in techno park in Maryina Gorka visited by journalists. So some information could be taken from these articles after proper translation. Dron007 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 - Excellent work. I'll check them, translate them when I can. I'll post the results on my talk page and included a summary here. I changed the name of this section to Request for verifiable sources on the 'EcoTechnoPark' in Belarus because the other articles changes have been addressed since the name change. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 Now that I think about it, the article is actually now about the companies and not the technology; you'd have to be able to explain the financial connections with the SkyWay group of companies. And there is even less clear (verifiable) information about this. So actually you have to ask if the meaning of the article makes more or less sense with information about the EcoTechnoPark. Maybe we'd have to consider creating a separate article about the EcoTechnoPark. But I don't think that'd be really worth the trouble. Remember - you can set up a carnival attraction that travels faster and further on a monorail in a couple of days. There are already people who can design and implement things like this. Just go to Disneyland or in fact any attraction park to see very impressive examples of small scale transportation systems that in any case look more impressive than what you see with the slow-moving possibly passengerless vehicles that could only fit a few people in them. It's interesting however how these people have been able to construct a large-scale international business around it which is still getting people interested in investing money. You can't help admiring them even if you don't agree with what they're doing.

@Dron007 I think the sentence "they make lofty claims..." is more problematic than "they make money by promoting the sale of shares". But both sentences are completely backed up in the translated verifiable articles. I was very careful about this. But I will double-check them both with the references and try to make sure it sounds more neutral. And it seems not a problem to suggest that a company makes money by promoting and selling shares! Don't most companies do this? The problem that needs to be emphasized (and is still not mentioned but is backed up in the references) is that they sell shares DESPITE not having permission to do so in many countries. Thanks for your advice. I appreciate you bringing these issues up here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the company but this company managed to interest investors and officials of some countries so it is easy to predict the questions of any reader: Why? What does this company "invented"? Any results? And there is nothing about it in the article. I also think that if the company which is declared as innovative already has a product (even as a concept) it worth adding its photo to the article even self-promoted one in case it looks the same as photos provided by mass-media. I don't think that EcoTechnoPark (or techno park in Shara) demands a separate article at this moment: not enough materials and probably low importance. But it worth mentioning. Comparing this transport with Disneyland we are making our own investigations and conclusions and we risk getting too deep into the technical details. As it was mentioned once here, Wiki is not a forum. Let's just provide sources of the required information and allow people to make their own judgements.Dron007 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase "they make money by promoting the sale of shares" is that it creates illusion that it is the only thing that this company does. Especially with the fact we skipping any information about the products. I cannot agree that "most companies makes money by promoting and selling shares". They usually use money from selling shares as investments to create a product selling which they will make money. So in my opinion phrase above implies "it is a scam" but we don't have such facts yet. Yes, it needs to mention the absense of permissions to sell shares in some countries. We also could mention that some Skyway companies evade this limitation selling "educational services/courses" instead but it is harder to find good sources for that.Dron007 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is one more source on EcoTechnoPark in Maryina Horka:

* https://42.tut.by/603396

It is another popular belorussian site. The journalist visited techno park. The article looks quite neutral. We can use short description of "technology" from there and maybe the fact that there are moving vehicles in EcoTechnoPark.Dron007 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 - Thank you for the links and you valid comments about the writing. It's important to only include verifiable statements that do not suggest partisanship. And it's only with someone else helping you that you can create something reliable. I didn't mean to offend with my comment about the comparison with an amusement park; I just wanted to point out that this technology in the context of a short-length monorail-type transport system is not really very remarkable which probably explains why there is so little actual critical commentary on it. Needless to say I will triple-check the sentence on the sale of shares and make it sound more neutral (if someone hasn't already changed it). You will notice that the title of the first section has changed from "Safety & evaluation" to "Evaluation of the SkyWay technology". Because it doesn't specifically mention 'safety' anymore we could probably introduce a sub-heading for the EcoTechnoPark. After all, if this park is useful for anything, it's evaluation of this technology. All we need is some actual research. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 - I checked my reference and I changed my sentence accordingly. I described my change at the end of the next section on 'fact-checking'. The new sentence sounds even more critical but it does more accurately represent what the reference actually says. My intention was not to suggest that this was the only thing the company did to make money. But you are right to suggest that the sentence I wrote gave this impression and I'm grateful you shared your opinion with me. I hope the change is more fair to the material and you don't consider it misleading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander Thank you, I think it sounds much better and neutral now. Even they site informs investors about risky investments.Dron007 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)'

@Dron007 The pleasure is mine. It really helps to know that someone is listening to you and it actually means a lot more if you have confirmation for what you do. I translated the 'TYT.BY' article. It's really very interesting and has lots of photos. Because it's not scientific research - and it's an anecdotal description - it's hard to use it on its own. But it is fascinating to read nonetheless and I agree that enough convincing, third-party commentary has to be worth considering. I will publish the translation after I've improved it on my Talk Page and invite some other people to read it. It makes me curious to read the 'Onliner' articles and I hope that with these articles we can do something with this material. I'm afraid that you have to ask yourself: among all these everyday people who are convinced to part with their money, why are there no scientists who provide critical commentary? It seems that the scientific world remains breathtakingly silent on a subject which has received so much (questionable) financing. What do you think? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

- I have translated 3 links from well known Belarusian online feeds concerning the EcoTechnoPark about 70km from Minsk. It will take me a while to clean these translations up so that they make sense. They contain a lot of colloquialisms and spoken language. The are filled with unverifiable photos and opinions. So they are very interesting and are filled with facts but, as you'd expect, no reference to scientific research or in fact informed commentary. Still, I will include them on my the user:Zaxander talk page when I've finished. In the meantime I suggest a subheading be created in 'Evaluation of the SkyWay technoloy' section and that we use the following text which reflects the current verifiable material on this park:

• "In the EcoTechnoPark about 70km from Minsk, the SkyWay Group has constructed a site where ‘SkyWay’ technology is demonstrated. There is unfortunately still no verifiable scientific evaluation of this site."

It is good for start. On some Onliner's articles there were references to scientific evaluations (e.g. video of prof. Vladimir Zylev) but there is contradictory information. Professors of the same Institute of Transport give opposite conclusions. Dron007 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Information we need as soon as possible: when was this park actually established? The 'Belarus feed' article suggests that 'last year' they started working on it. It was published two years ago. There must already be at least one reliable source that clearly states when they started working on this site? Others say they are still working on it. Others that it is rusty and falling apart. But there must be some consensus on when it actually started. It seems pretty flimsy to introduce an idea without being able to give a definite idea of when it was started. But I did it anyway because there is so much material on this place. It's just hard to find clear information. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

According to their site the work was started in August 2015 [17]. More of less independant 3rd party sources (local news site) are dated by October 2015 [18]. They created different types of roads, built guest house, pond, fishing places, garden, even place to grow watermelons. So there is no moment when it was finished, they still build new constructions there. It is said in Tut.By article dated June 2017 [19] that they are "finishing building the test site". By the way it is another good article which has a lot of useful information from sceptical/neutral journalist. Dron007 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 Thank you. It's great to have a date and a reference we can use. I've added this to the description and changed it so that it confirms the fact that they started working on it at this time rather than 'have constructed' it because it seems from many sources that they have not finished it yet. I will check out the 'TUT.BY' reference. I think there are at least 3 'ONLINER.BY' articles (but I have only translated 2). I love the watermelon patch! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There are at least 8 Onliner articles tagged Skyway: https://tech.onliner.by/tag/skyway Dron007 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 The ONLINER.BY article "Is it an April Fools Day joke?" from August 2018 is really interesting. I will clean up the translation and post this one on my talk page eventually. It attempts to answer many of the questions I pose below about how the company actually works - the promotion of profits above technology but also the unwavering belief of many people who do work for the company (and are not necessarily scientists). Thanks again for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It will be very useful. There are few English materials. Dron007 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:Oh - My three translations of ONLINER.BY and TUT.BY articles were absolutely awful. Google translate is unfortunately not good at translating anecdotal Russian sources (and my Russian is far worse than Google). Sorry about making this promise to publish these translations but they're just not good enough. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's okay. For our purpose we need only basic understanding of the article and translation of quotes if we are going to use them.Dron007 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:There are many photos of the technology at EcoTechnoPark but I can't find one in a really good source. Some of them are really good photos in the 'ONLINER.BY' and 'TUT.BY' articles but it would be better to use one in a more verifiable source. If we are to include an image, I think it should be one from this park because it shows actual moving vehicles. There's no point in illustrating stationary vehicles at a fair, university or a governmental summit. The Ozery site has also been deconstructed and I can't find any verifiable links to it anyway. Can you find a good, clear photo in a reliable source? If you can I think we should include it as soon as possible. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:The first event came to my mind that was covered by many reliable sources with photos is an incident with unibus: [20][21][22][23][24]. Of course that wouldn't be right to use such photos. Unfortunately most photos of good quality are from press releases and other promoted materials or advertisements of the company like these: [25][26].Dron007 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:You came to the same conclusion I did: we can't use an image just yet - we'll just have to keep an eye out. Any image which shows moving vehicle without observers taking photos or accidents would probably do.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

String transport→SkyWay (name change): introduction adjustments and fact-check

It seems now pretty sure that the name of the article will be changing to "SkyWay Group". The wording, especially in the first paragraph will have to be changed. It's important that every setence is correct and verifiably reference. I was sure to fact-check every claim with individual references. Any suggestions you may have would be welcome at the end of the article to avoid confusion about the references and to assess your suggesstions.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander

SkyWay Group refers to a wide range of companies established and owned by the Russian inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy.[1] These companies are registered under business names like "SkyWay Capital Ltd." [2] and "Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd."[3] in London, Minsk and the Virgin Islands.[4] The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors; they make lofty claims about the potential of their light rail transportation system [1] called 'SkyWay' (also referred to by Kunitskiy as 'String Transport').[5] Potential investors are promised enormous returns on tax-free investments.[1] Unfortunately none of the Skyway group has ever realised a project [4] and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities.[2]

[changes by user:Zaxander—Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A prototype of the technology promoted by the Skyway Group was assessed by the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering. They concluded that "the technology is filled with a large number of system defects" and that the system is "associated with great risk". In 2016, a Russian government panel that evaluated the technology called it, "innovative, but only in theory".[5]

Although in various countries proceedings were started to initiate SkyWay Group projects - including India, Italy, the United Arab Emirates[7] and Lithuania - no projects have been realised; Memorandum of Understanding contracts were apparently signed but projects in Lithuania and India have been stalled due to concerns about safety and viability of the technology [6] as well as financial irregularity.[5] The Italian government has banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay group company shares.[4]

The SkyWay Group is financing itself using suspicious marketing techniques [1] and crowdfunding.[4] However, financial regulators in multiple countries including Belgium, Estonia,[2] Germany [8], Greece] [9] Italy [4], Lithuania [2] and New Zealand [10] have issued warnings about the scheme and accused the promoters of not complying with legal requirements when seeking investment.[5] The FSMA (Belgium) warned that such financial schemes exhibit "the characteristics of a pyramid scheme".[2]

references

[1] https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/lietuvos-bankas-oro-traukinius-zadancio-a-junickio-veikloje-sukciavimo-pozymiai.d?id=65880462

[2] FSMA Belgium reference

[3] "«Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ldt.», «American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.», « African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. », «Australian&Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd » and, set purposely to Lithuania, «Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.» are a few to be mentioned." https://bnn-news.com/genuine-investment-project-boondoggle-scheme-lithuania-national-security-threat-119828

[4] "Sky Way, l'azienda del "tram volante" che non ha mai realizzato un progetto". letteraemme.it.

[5] http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/transport/?doc=96284

[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/doubts-raised-over-belarus-company-credential-for-rs-250-crore-skyway-transport-project-in-dharamshala/articleshow/59568813.cms

[7] https://www.rta.ae/wps/portal/rta/ae/home/news-and-media/all-news/NewsDetails/mou-with-skyway-greentech-to-develop-sky-pod-network

[8]https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Verbrauchermitteilung/weitere/2018/vm_181108_first_skyway_invest_group.html

[9] https://economynews247.ibhs.gr/epixeiriseis/17219-epitropi-kefalaiagoras-choris-egkrisi-oi-diafimiseis-tis-skyway-invest-group

[10] https://www.fma.govt.nz/news-and-resources/warnings-and-alerts/skyway-capitalskyway-group/

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

SENTENCE: "The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors..."

User Dron007 made a valid query about this sentence in the opening paragraph. I will discuss it here. Here is the link to the actual article I used:

https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-warns-skyway-activities-in-lithuania-illegal

The Lithuanian Bank warning article (in English) states the following: "The Bank of Lithuania has recently noticed intensified activities of the SkyWay group, encouraging investing in this group’s project" and furthermore that "representatives keep issuing invitations, in various ways, to finance unclear projects, promising 'quick and easy benefits' ". It states clearly that "they have no permits to sale shares in Lithuania" and that the reader is warned because they "may lose their money". I suggest we change the sentence to "The companies encourage risky investment in unclear projects". I hope this sounds more neutral and is better representative of the material. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a phrase "Unfortunately none of the Skyway Group has ever realised a project outside of Belarus and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities." The problem with it is that it is 1) Not neutral and looks like a personal opinion. 2) You cannot proof absense of anything, right? So it is not possible to support this statement. "Financial irregularities" part is ok but it is repeated 2 sentences below: "As a result, financial regulators in many countries... have issued warnings...". The phrase "no projects have been realized" is also repeated so I think that sentence could be safely omitted.Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

After all changes we still don't have anything about essense of the technology. I added a link on Skyway_(disambiguation) page and I had to give very short text describing this article so I used "а group of companies claiming the invention of a new transport technology" (BTW please fix grammar if incorrect). We don't have even this short description in the preamble. There is nothing about rails or suspension railway or even transport. Reader nowing nothing about Skyway have to guess it from companys' names, or from categories. There should be some descriptive text about the area of work of these companies. Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dron007 (talk · contribs) I'll check the disambiguation link. I think it's right to include information about what it is the companies are promoting. At the moment it says only that they 'promote' this technology and nothing else. I'll see what I can do but I'm worried that I will make the situation even worse. At the moment, they are trying to have it all deleted. I wonder whose interest that would serve? Not the interest of people who want to have an objective view of collected data, in any case. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dron007 (talk · contribs)The disambiguation link sounds great. I've included the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph. In this way, we mention Yunitskiy and his technology and we don't make unfounded suppositions about it either: "This technology was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy and it is presented as a new type of light rail transportation system". Maybe 'elevated light right' would be even better? Please add something to support NOT deleting the article on the deletion request page. I know it's not perfect but silencing people isn't going to help anyone.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is nice for start. I think it should be extended more as the next question of any curious reader will be "how it differs from any other railway system or monorail?" I surely add my thoughts against deletion.Dron007 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for help on updating Skyway Group 'categories' and 'see also'

CATEGORIES

It seems to me that it is misleading to include the following as the only 'categories' for an article about a set of companies who promote an unverified technology:

• Monorails
• Proposed rail infrastructure
• Rail transport

Do you have a suggestion about other categories we could include here? Please include them below or let us know what you feel about any suggestions made:

• Pyramid & Ponzi schemes - this is a valid category and many of the verifiable resources suggest that SkyWay displays characteristics.
• Multi-level marketing - also a valid category, and all business statements and SkyWay Group contracts involve the multi-level distribution of funding and the financial renumeration of getting more people involved in the project.

SEE ALSO

In the light of the name change it seems at best misleading to include only links to other forms of technology. Here are the links as present:

• Suspension railway
• Automated Guided Railway

Any ideas? Please don't change the article until there has been consensus about this here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, the fact that some resources suggest that SkyWay displays characteristics of Ponzi scheme is still not enough to add this category. There were no proofs, no court decision and even above-mentioned resources have only suggestions. Opposite to this MLM is a valid category as it is the fact approved by the company. No objections concerning other categories. Dron007 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 Thanks for your response. MLM is also known as 'pyramid marketing' so I'm happy with that. I don't want to change the categories without more consensus but it seems unproblematic to add to the 'see also' section. Even the company itself promotes MLM marketing and crowdfunding and the concepts are supported by the verified references, so I've added them to 'see also'. By the way, SkyWay doesn't share 'all' the characteristics of a 'monorail' either but it's still included as a category. But that seems irrelevant anyway as the article is no longer about 'rail' at all; it's about a business. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

List of companies belonging to the 'SkyWay Group'

There seem to be so many companies which belong to the SkyWay Group. The waters are muddied by the companies themselves being registered in difficult to pin-down tax havens such as the Virgin Islands. Whoever runs them is good at obfuscating the truth and confusing the matter by providing multiple conflicting accounts.

The idea is to include a complete list with the following information as it pertains to each entry: company name (place of registration) year of registration, year of dissolution, primary share-holder/owner & company director, e.g. Industrial Plastics Ltd. (Zanzibar) 1993-2012, I. Madork - Y. Gota. Include a separate reference if the company is registered with the same name in a different location.

• American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
• African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
• Australian & Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London), 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
• Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2015
• Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding II Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2016
• Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding III Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2018
• Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2018, A. Yunitskiy
• First SkyWay Invest Group Ltd. (London) 2015, A. Kudriashov
• Global Transport Investments Inc. (British Virgin Islands), 2015
• Global Transport Investments Inc. (London) 1992-
• PT Skyway Teknologies Indonesia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (Lithuania)
• Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (the Virgin Islands)
• RSW Investment Group Ltd. (The Virgin Islands)
• Sky Way Capital Inc. (Saint Lucia) 2018
• SkyWay Capital Investment Co.
• SkyWay Capital Ltd. (Minsk)
• SkyWay Greentech Company
• SkyWay Invest Group (Minsk) A. Hovratov
• SkyWay Systems Ltd.
• SkyWay Technologies Co. (Minsk) 2015
• СТРУННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ ЗАО / CJSC String Technologies (Belarus) 2015

The actual article about the Skyway Group can only contain verifiable references. There are, however, many copies of official documents which, although unusable in the article, can help us build this list. Please help us keep this list up-to-date. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I think this is too much information so with your permission I'll summarise it and then possibly at the end include it in a single table. Is there any information you think I should include in each reference? What do people need to know about the companies? With your permission, however, I'll remove all the information that does not pertain to the companies (such as commentary and websites).Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

LIST UPDATED with new information, extra companies and locations added. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for verifiable references of 'SkyWay Group' marketing techniques

In the future we should include a new heading on the evaluation of the marketing techniques used by this group of companies. These are some of the issues which have been suggested. Any references you may find would be appreciated. They will be translated, made accessible for analysis and eventually used in the article.

The SkyWay Group has no 'product' to sell in the way that 'herbalife' does. Companies like this which are involved in Multi-level management and pyramid schemes, can promote selling an actual product to someone (and encourage them to find friends and families to invest and further sell these products). The Skyway Group, however, has nothing concrete to sell. What they do have is an idea which is sold in the form of the 'SkyWay' technology. Using this concept they are able to make money. How do they do it? And how do they distribute these funds? Here are some ideas which should be included in a carefully worded description to verifiable sources:

Yunitskiy and his technology as marketing tools

Anatoly Yunitskiy invented the technology. He founded the companies. He appears to be the primary shareholder. He is present at all SkyWay events. Sometimes he is presented as a business-man. Sometimes as an engineer. Sometimes as a brilliant inventor. Sometimes as a wildly independent genius. Sometimes as a hero who has the answers for all world problems thanks to his SkyWay technology. He attends international events and speaks there. His name is on many contracts. They claim he did all sorts of things like work on united nations projects. He apparently received an international peace prize in Bratislave. Some of this are obvious fabrications (there is no such peace prize awarded to anyone else) and some so ridiculous they are amusing. But that is irrevelant here. Yunitskiy is without a doubt a complex construction designed to support the aggressive marketing of a business. Questions that need to be answered here and that we can still only speculate about include the following: How complicit is Yunitskiy himself in this complex marketing construction? Is he a figure-head or an instigator? Is he a wildly devious and clever marketeer? Or was his work co-opted by business interests and is his work being used by scammers? Or are these both true? Some people have suggested that the MLM investment scheme is unconnected to Yunitsky. This is obviously untrue and is often an attempt at obfuscation. His technology really does exist. He really does exist and seems involved in most of the companies in some way and his technology is the closest you get to the companies having 'something' to sell to clients. This is how they convince people to buy shares. The actual processes they apply to sell these shares are included as additional sub-headings below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sale of company shares/stocks

The companies are selling shares. In some places this is illegal. People from around the world are still being convinced to buy these shares. Where is it illegal?

References to "buying shares" show extensively in marketing materials related to SkyWay, however it is also said that they do not "sell shares". The first reason for this can be found in the investment memorandum:

https://skyway.capital/assets/5290e534/img/documents/invest_memorandum_en.pdf

Simply put, investors in SkyWay purchase rights to buy SkyWay shares at fixed price at some point in the future. What they have now are non-tradable stock options. The share certificates from ERSSH II Limited state the following:

“ This is to Certify that [name] of [address] is the Registered Holder of [number of shares] ordinary Shares of par value USD 1.00 each numbered from [number] to [number] inclusive in the above named Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said Company. Given under the Common Seal of the Company this [number] day of [month] [year] ”

- Thanks to user:Kmarinas86 for this information. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• It should be noted here that in order to legally sell shares of a company, you have to be recognized by a market authority in the country which you are selling them. Although the warnings from countries against the activities of these companies confirms this, it does not by means of exclusion legitimize the sale of shares anywhere else. The warnings are just an alarm bell. It appears that none of the SkyWay companies have ever received official permission to sell shares anywhere. Do you disagree? Please only argument this point with references to second party confirmations of instances where the sale of shares has been permitted by a marketing authority. All unsupported lofty claims about what you can get when you buy these shares will be immediately removed; there are enough of such claims already in the text above.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sale of shares to everyday individuals

The companies somehow encourage sale of the shares to motivated individuals who become encouraged during motivational gatherings to part with their money. Such meetings were held in Belgium and people were convinced to part with their money after hearing complex motivational explanations about investment plans which they would eventually receive returns on if they waited long enough. How on earth do they get people to do this in foreign countries outside of Russia?

At the festival held in the EcoTechnoPark in 2018 there were investors at the event from all over the world, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand. These people were without exception everyday individuals who had been convinced to invest their money in the project. They were all unwavering in their conviction to the project despite being unqualified to know anything about it. This article from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'TUT.BY'

https://42.tut.by/603396

Here's a quote on this particular aspect of funding from the "ONLINER.BY" commentary released August 2018:

• "Money for everything is collected from ordinary people who, in return for their contributions, are promised either shares, or stakes in the company, and someday - wealth, happiness and a bright future for their grandchildren."
• V. Zylev, advisor to the Russian Academy of Architecture & Construction Sciences is not sure when, if ever, simple gullible people will see their money again.

https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

The company does not hide this aspect of its marketing. It's not actually illegal. But receiving funding from everyday people for large-scale technological projects is extremely irregular. But how are the SkyWay Group making use of the internet to sell shares to investors?

Multi-level marketing

We know that the company adopts policies which involve investors being encouraged to find other investors so that they will receive return on their own investments. Anecdotal accounts demonstrate how dynamic individuals encourage groups of people, often friends and families, to encourage others to invest. How does this work?

Sale of Educational Services/Courses

To avoid some of the regulation restricting the sale of company shares, it has been suggested that these companies are attempting to sell educational courses. How do they do this?

International negotiations

These companies attempt to organize negotiations with international players. They manage to involve themselves in the signing of contracts and are always seen to be actively involved in negotiating. But they've never realized a project. Do they actually intend to? How do they profit from this?

Corruption

We know from verifiable sources that financial payments were made during the Lithuania scandal. Financial impropriety was also suggested in the Indian and Italian scandals. How does this receive expression in their business plan?

Tax havens

They make use of an unregulated financial system by having companies registered in tax havens like Saint-Lucia and the British Virigin Islands. How do they profit from this?

Use of investments

How do they make use of the money they receive from investors? How is it redistributed among investors and management? How much is actually returned to investors?

• According to Pavel, who worked as an engineer on the SkyWay project in Belarus, 'gullible people' work for the company but these people may actually believe in the projects: "I got the impression that for the money of investors they try to create projects like the ones in their commercials... All to take more money from people." Often they only try to 'depict the work' rather than questioning the validity of the engineering concepts.

https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Crypto-currency

Recent postings have suggested that new forms of funding are encouraging investment in cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions, control the creation of additional units, and verify the transfer of assets. This is still speculation, but it was suggested that recent efforts have included discussions of the cryptocurrencies once the pyramid model natural imploded and they need new forms of financing to prop up the MLM. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• It so early to discuss it. There is even not too much information about it from Skyway related sources. They even don't have a white paper for their planned crypto currency. This is an official site of the ICO of their crypto currency but it wasn't updated since last year: [27]. Dron007 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusions

It's important that any drawn conclusions be included from verifiable sources. Include any links you may have or ideas below. Please don't fill this talk page with information; provide a link to a source of your own talk page. Any ideas will be considered and sources analysed. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest when there are more references collected, even anecdotal ones, we should start experimenting with this in the sandbox. It may never bear fruit, but when it can be more than speculation it should become a part of a complete description of the 'SkyWay Group'. There should probably be more information about Yunitskiy as well. In discussion threads there is some confusion about the extent of involvement of Yunitskiy in the SkyWay affair. Although I fear this is deliberate obfuscation by sock puppets - who on the one hand say the technology is unconnected to the crowdfunding efforts and therefore deserve ... more funding, and on the other argue vociferously for an intimate connection between the two - this needs to be clarified as it is one of the reasons that is being used to argue for the deletion of this article. There are so many unanswered questions posed on MLM discussion sites and what we really need is a financial crimes specialist to investigate this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Skyway in Indonesia

There is no information about it at all, meanwhile there was period when Skyway was producing a lot of news and their managers signed MoU there and told about $42 billion projects[28]. It was terminated and Skyway alleged that Indonesian partners did nothing to promote Skyway in the region and stole money. Let's collect verifiable sources here. At the same time Indonesian partners said that company was frozen because of public complaints. Unfortunately it is in Indonesian. Google translations: "Mufli Asmawijaya, as the Chairperson of OJK Advocacy through telephone confirmation also suggested that companies in Indonesia immediately announce their freeze, given that there had been a lot of complaints from the public regarding several MLM offerings that had been selling investment products"

• Indonesian source: [29]
• Here is Skyway version: [30]

Dron007 (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron07 - I actually studied Indonesia and lived there so I'll check out these references. Thanks for this. I changed the article already to mention that they are in negotiation with the SkyWay companies in Indonesia. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There are the main facts suggested in the article:

• Negotiations between Indonesia and the SkyWay Group were finally stopped in 2018.
• News of the resignation of the director of 'PT Skyway Technologies Indonesia' was repressed by the mother company in Belarus.
• According to the Indonesian Financial Services Authority (OJK), complaints had been made by the public about investment products being offered and because of the misinformation about the company this had to be made clear.
• This misinformation propagated by Skyway involved failure to inform the public about the cancellation of Skyway projects in Turkey, Australia and Indonesia.
• The OJK also confirmed that no SkyWay companies has ever registered officially in Indonesia.
• 'PT Skyway Technologies Indonesia' were apparently planning a project of 'sky trains' at the Jorong Port in Kalimantan.

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a new verifiable reference on the operations of the SkyWay in Indonesia. I found it in the Norwegian Wikipedia article. It concerns collaboration between UI (University of Indonesia) and Skyway:

• https://www.merdeka.com/teknologi/gandeng-skyway-indonesia-ui-akan-bangun-kereta-langit.html

−Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

New references worth checking with third-party assessments of SkyWay

Include below links to references of recent third-party assessments of the Sky Group and their practices. Try to include a description of the source, i.e. a local government website or a popular well-known feed. We need more assessment of these interesting source.

BELARUSFEED - English language newsfeed on Belarusian issues.

http://belarusfeed.com/transport-of-the-future-video-shows-high-speed-string-vehicle-tested-in-belarus

GORKA.BY - local site for the Maryina Horka region.

6 October 2015 "A test-centre for the transport of the future is being built near Maryina Gorka"

http://www.gorka.by/?p=29392

ONLINER.BY - Popular newsfeed on Belarusian current affairs. The editors were actually taken to court by Yunitskiy for libel. Skyway lost.

18 September 2018 "Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?"

https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway

22 February 2019 "I invested about $6600 in SkyWay..."

https://tech.onliner.by/2019/02/22/skyway-3

TUT.BY - Another newsfeed similar to ONLINER.BY.

28 June 2017 "In Maryina Horka they finish building the 'technology of the future' landfill..,"

https://42.tut.by/549310?crnd=92751

5 August 2018 "String transport against journalists and scientists"

https://42.tut.by/603396

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The conclusion about the assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering from 2008 is already outdated.

In early 2018, the technology underwent new expertise, and this time a positive conclusion was given. Here is a link from the official site of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering (in Russian):

[31]

They write: “The company "SkyWay" received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport. Certificates are issued for a unibus model U4-210 and a unibike model U4-621, which can be seen at the test site of transport - EcoTechnoPark. Today, string transport is a de facto separate type of transport, so certification was carried out to comply with the requirements of the regulatory documents of urban electric transport: Unibus U4-210 Certificate PDF, Unibike U4-621 PDF Certificate...

...SkyWay signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation with the institution “Moscow State University of Railway Engineering”. A positive conclusion was made by the university on the work“ Preliminary Evaluation of the Development Prospects and the Field of Use of Innovative String-Rail Transport of SkyWay Rack Type".

Consider adding information about this assessment to the article, and delete or minify information about the old assessment from 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this source is that it is not an original material of MSUoRE but copy of an article from the "Transport of Russia" newspaper. It is dated Jan 2018 and in Dec 2017 there was a promoted material in the Skyway-related site: [32] (Russian) [33] (English) which is almost identical to this article including wordings like "As a reminder... the Expert Council under the Ministry of transport of the Russian Federation acknowledged SkyWay string technology as innovative." It looks like a Churnalism and I don't think we can use this material as it is just a copy of company's press-release.Dron007 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We would need an independent secondary source to tell us the significance of the certification, but it looks to me like a routine step in the product development process that simply confirms that the vehicles meets certain regulatory requirements. We shouldn't treat this as a government endorsement or as a sign that the overall concept is workable or practical.

The nature of the agreement with the university is unclear, and again we would need secondary sources to tell us what it really means. We shouldn't treat this as a "reversal" of the university's position. It may be the case that the negative assessment still stands, and the university has agreed to work with Skyway to develop a concept that is more than just a novel idea. We just don't know. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Two secondary sources: [34] and [35] (section "Струны под сертификатом" in the second link). It is clearly stated that "The company SkyWay received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport." Did they issue the certificates if the technology was unsafe? No, they've changed their mind after the assessment, which is not unusual, since 10 years have passed, and the technology has been improved over this time. They write: "The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies in the design, development, and implementation of string transport in the transport infrastructure. The agreement is long-term, it is related not only to extensive scientific and technical cooperation but also to analytical and socio-cultural activities. It will be especially interesting for graduates and young professionals who have graduated from MSUoRE, because their career horizons will expand in the near future." The university is a governmental institution, so I think the main idea of this assessment is not that they will implement some commercial project(s) together but that the technology is technically feasible and is not "unsafe" anymore as it used to be in 2008. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately any decision made by a university, a regulatory agency or a government doesn't mean anything if it hasn't resulted in the application of this technology. What happens to the career horizons of young professionals is especially irrelevant. Discussions of possible future collaboration doesn't mean anything either if it hasn't resulted in any real proposals of future collaboration. A decision today doesn't negate the results of previous negative assessments either which are still true for actual decisions about the implementation of this technology. Maybe it will mean something in the future. But these references do not give any indication that they mean anything now. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

When someone has commented in a verifiable article on how this MSUoRE policy decision has resulted in actual application of this technology or at least to a proposal of implementation, we could change the article text. Until then it remains conjecture. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

you contradict yourself: if a positive assessment made by the university "...doesn't mean anything if it hasn't resulted in the application of this technology", then why is the negative assessment made by the same institution is emphasized in the article? If the positive assessment is unimportant and the technology can be assessed only when it is implemented somewhere, then why is the negative assessment included in the "Technology" section? This is what I have already said: the article is far away from being neutral, and if there was another negative assessment of the technology, I am sure it would be included in the article without hesitation. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see what your frustration is. Please make a suggestion how you propose we could word this better. A negative assessment is quoted because it was used as the basis for secondary sources and the choice to not implement the project in the past. You're right it is far easier to say that something resulted in a negative choice. Unfortunately this is the only verifiable realization of this (negative) decision. The positive assessment still doesn't mean anything until you're able to prove that thanks to this claim being made, something has happened that someone has documented. If you think we could word the 'negative assessment in a way that reflects better reality and this can be backed up with a verifiable reference, please include your suggestion below that someone other than me can assess. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the 'technology' section is the result of a recent change by another user. It used to be called 'Assessment' and before that 'Safety & evaluation'. I didn't object to the name change because if it's called 'technology' we can change the content to include more about the technology when we have more verifiable references. I actually think 'Evaluation' would be a better title than 'Technology' but this new choice does offer more scope in the future. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a valid observation that so much specific information about only the (negative) assessment is now included in a heading which broadly describes the technology. This is misleading. Maybe someone (else) could change it to 'Evaluation' or something until we have enough valid content. It can always be changed in the future when the contents actually reflects the technology and not just its assessment in Russia. This is a very real problem I think. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay in Turkey

According to the Indonesian article mentioned above, the SkyWay group has been misinforming the world about its negotiations with Turkey. According to the article, plans of the SkyWay group have similarly been brought into question and stopped, although you wouldn't think this from the SkyWay website which discuss it as an ongoing project. This is a request for documentation on actual articles referring to what is happening/has happened to negotiations in Turkey if they are at all. Despite the fact that it is mentioned all over the 'SkyWay' website, this is the first time a verifiable source has mentioned Turkey at all. Include any links below.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They wrote that mayor of Ersurum had visited EcoTechnoPark and that "The official edition of the municipality of Erzurum “Erzurum Büyükşehir Belediyesi” published an article, which, in particular, focuses on the fact that the Mayor of the city of Erzurum Mehmet Sekmen told the public about SkyWay technology. Moreover, he informed that it is planned to allocate funds for the construction of SkyWay transport already in 2017!" [36] but it is very easy to check that there is nothing about Skyway on the mentioned page [37]. Dron007 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 More good research. This sort of proves how important it is for the SkyWay Group to 'appear' as if it is negotiating with powerful partners. The Indonesian reference you found actually states that collaboration between Indonesian companies and the SkyWay group were cancelled but that nonetheless the SkyWay group continued to lie about their collaborations, as they were doing with negotiations in Turkey and Australia. We do know that at one stage there really were collaborations with Australia and Indonesia. I wonder what the whole truth is about Turkey? Sometimes it's really hard to tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Turkish delegation visited Belarus and they signed MoU but I couldn't find any independent reports.Dron007 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Warnings of financial regulators

This list includes the countries whose national banks or financial regulating agencies have issued some type of warning about investment in the SkyWay Group. Request for help to keep this list up-to-date with a link to the actual warnings. Please note that financial regulations are considered primary sources like legislation. Verifiable links which help make a company notable need to include secondary references which verify these primary sources. A good example below is the Greek regulatory warning. First link is to a verifiable source (EconomyNews247) of a primary Greek regulatory warning from the HCMC. We need to find secondary sources for each of these warnings. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• BELGIUM (FSMA)

primary source: https://www.fsma.be/en/warnings/first-skyway-invest-group-limited-skyway-capital

• the CZECH REPUBLIC (CNB)

http://www.cnb.cz/cs/spotrebitel/ochrana_spotrebitele/upozorneni/upozorneni_euroasian_rail_skyway.html

• ESTONIA (EFSA)

primary source: https://www.fi.ee/sites/default/files/2018-12/20170424_Hoiatusteade_First_SkyWay_Invest_Group_LTD.pdf

• GERMANY (BaFin)

primary source: https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Verbrauchermitteilung/weitere/2018/vm_181108_first_skyway_invest_group.html

• GREECE (HCMC)

verified link:

https://economynews247.ibhs.gr/epixeiriseis/17219-epitropi-kefalaiagoras-choris-egkrisi-oi-diafimiseis-tis-skyway-invest-group

primary source:

http://www.hcmc.gr/vdrv/elib/a056c494c-1ef7-44e9-b5e7-db55d67a566e-695604395-0

• ITALY (CONSOB)

primary source:

http://www.consob.it/web/consob-and-its-activities/warnings?viewId=ultime_com_tutela

verified link: http://www.letteraemme.it/2018/07/20/sky-way-lazienda-del-tram-volante-che-non-ha-mai-realizzato-un-progetto/

• LITHUANIA

primary source:https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-warns-skyway-activities-in-lithuania-illegal

verified link: https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/lietuvos-bankas-oro-traukinius-zadancio-a-junickio-veikloje-sukciavimo-pozymiai.d?id=65880462

• NEW ZEALAND (FMA)

primary source: https://fma.govt.nz/news-and-resources/warnings-and-alerts/skyway-capitalskyway-group/

verified link: https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/regulation/new-zealands-fma-adds-skyway-capital-to-its-warning-list/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• SLOVAKIA (SNB)

primary source: http://www.nbs.sk/sk/dohlad-nad-financnym-trhom-prakticke-informacie/upozornenia-a-oznamenia/upozornenia-na-nepovolenu-cinnost-subjektov/upozornenie-narodnej-banky-slovenska-na-cinnost-spolocnosti-first-skyway-invest-group-ltd Dron007 (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007 Good work! I translated the warning: it is very similar to the warning from the national bank of the Czech Republic. The list of countries which have issued warnings is actually getting very long - I changed the text to read 'many countries including...' so that this would be still be true for the unlisted countries. Do you think we should add 'Slovenia' and 'the Czech Republic' to the list? I'd be happy to do it, but I'd like to hear your opinion first (I put the Czech Republic warning there a few weeks ago and no one has either commented on it or responded too it). −Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It doesn't take too much space but it is official information we can trust. Dron007 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Upon looking at this source provided above, how would stating "many countries including..." not constitute WP:OR? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This source also looks like it is used for the majority of the page yet it is a press release from a regulatory agency. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I will remove the reference to 'many countries'; it was only put there because there were so many countries that have released regulatory warnings and the countries in the 'regulatory warnings' section differed to the countries mentioned in the 'background'. These references, however, have been expanded upon. I have also added more specific links to actual individual sites and what those warnings say. They've each been checked. I can understand your worries about the FSMA reference being used a lot and I've tried to address these issues. I'll also remove reference to the supposed Estonia warning as it is only mentioned in the FSMA press release and may be a mistake. I hope I've helped to address your issues.

• REQUEST FOR INFORMATION on the warnings from the regulatory agency in Estonia

- At the moment we only have the FSMA Belgium reference stating that Estonia is one of the countries who has released a warning about investing in SkyWay Group company shares. I've been to the 'Estonian Financial Supervision Authority' (EFSA - Finantsinspektsioon) and I can't find anything there. This could be a mistake and therefore should be removed, but I'm requesting here that someone finds an actual reference we can use. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I managed to find it there using Google's search by site 'site:www.fi.ee skyway'. There are other warnings (Belgiam, Italian) including Estonian one: [38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dron007 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Great! I couldn't find this - thanks.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• For Italy we have updated warning dated 19 Feb 2019: [39] Dron007 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is neither a biography or an attack. It is merely a summary of the verifiable references to the 'SkyWay Group' of companies. People have a right to read a collated collection of published verifiable information about a company and its practices. Not including this information allows the self-published, self-promoting sources to exist as truth. There has to be a place to share and build up verifiable information on any given subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This page shoild be deleted becouse it is is about non-existent company, i mean SkyWay Group. There is no such a company registered anywere. There is no information on what this company produces. The accusations against the companies, which has a "skyway" in they title are obviously ambiguous. This article dont looks enciclopedic at all. It is more simillar to Black PR. --Владимир Малафей (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

-The term 'SkyWay Group' is a blanket term used to refer to a group of companies. They are listed in a sub-heading above. There are numerous verifiable references that use the term 'SkyWay Group' to refer to these companies. No one is suggesting that there is a company with this name. You should read the contents of the talk page and the request for the name change of this article before suggesting it be removed or supporting the deletion of an article. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

REQUEST for exact verifiable reference for Yunitskiy as owner and founder

ANATOLY YUNITSKIY invented 'SkyWay' technology. He is also the spokesperson, chairman, director of most of the companies as well as the primary shareholder. He attends all SkyWay events and is present at all international negotiations. But before we include his name in the lede and the background we have to have a specific reference that states this. The fact that he is mentioned in almost every article, and when he's not mentioned, no one else is, is not enough in and of itself. Could anyone include a reference below that states something like "Anatoly Yunitskiy is the primary share-holder (and/or) director" it would be great. It has to be a newspaper and more than a newsfeed, i.e. "according to the Economic Times, Yunitsky is...". If we have this we can include Yunitskiy's name in the opening 'lede' paragraph.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The following statement is based on the article in The Baltic Course:

"According to the Baltic Course, Anatoly Yunitskiy is the founded and primary share-holder of companies in the SkyWay Group"

http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/legislation/?doc=146312 –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about validity of Indian and Italian references

• These concerns were brought up about the questionability of the sources from Italy (ref name="letteraemme") and India (the Economic Times. They were posted as part of the NOTABILITY deletion request from February 2019 and could not contribute to this argument as they concerned the content of the article, but should be considered here. They were posted by user: IGOR KOIRO. Let me know what you think:

--Comment by Igor Koiro:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/doubts-raised-over-belarus-company-credential-for-rs-250-crore-skyway-transport-project-in-dharamshala/articleshow/59568813.cms

I draw your attention to the fact that the cited source published the article of the political opposition to the then acting ruler who supported the technology and lied on purpose. There are words about innovations in the original document, but nothing about its theoretical nature. On the official website (in Russian) of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation there appeared the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Council held on February 11, 2016, during which the SkyWay transport system was recognized as innovative. This is the link to the document: https://itk-mdl.asutk.ru/upload/doc/%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%9B%2016%20-%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%202.pdf

In English the relevant paragraph reads:

“V. On consideration of SkyWay Technologies Co. application (Davydov, Shatrakov, Slepak, Zarechkin, Polozov-Yablonsky, Zhankaziev) 1. The following information has been taken into consideration: 1.1. SkyWay Technologies Co. (Yunitsky) has spoken on the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way; 1.2. The Expert Council has admitted a possibility of recognizing the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative. 2. There has been resolved as follows: 2.1. Recognize the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative; 2.2. Recommend SkyWay Technologies Co. to additionally present a project for application of the proposed transport system Sky Way in specific operation conditions. In cooperation with the Industry expertise centre of import-substituting technologies in transport, it is recommended to prepare a comparative analysis of the proposed innovative solutions vs analogic existing technologies.”

Instead of quoting the source which is available on the official site, the author of the article has spent time finding a site that published an outright lie on this document due to subjective reasons, which is what he needed doing the same thing, because their goals are the same - defamation. Moreover, feeling the lack of negative info the author posts this lie twice, in the “Background” and “Test projects. Russia” paragraphs.

2) Can we believe in good intentions of such an author at all? No, meaning his point of view is not neutral WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSD, criteria WP:G10.

3) The article is to be deleted since the author’s point of view is extremely biased and thus violates the stated “Neutral point of view” requirement WP:NPOV. For instance, in “Abandoned projects. Russia” the article reads:

“In 2007 and 2018 pilot projects of the SkyWay Group technology were planned in Russian cities. But specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering gave a negative assessment of the project and it was not implemented.[3]”

The author refers to the article from a Sicilian newspaper which was written during the election campaign of the Mayor of Messina who at the time was supporting a transportation system reform. The political bias is transparent here. Anyhow, even without taking this fact into consideration, it is necessary to note that the author has found the real fact dating back to 2008, but neglected the following developments, moreover, he has lied about a negative assessment of SkyWay’s recent projects by specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering.

Vice versa: ten years after that event specialists of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering realized their mistakes, appreciated the works of Anatoly Yunitskiy and offered cooperation! It happened after a visit to the SkyWay EcoTechnoPark by the Professor of the Department “Bridges and tunnels” Vladimir Fridkin, Doctor of Engineering Science, who had doubted on the prospects of SkyWay transport previously. So, as a result, in December, 2017 an agreement on comprehensive cooperation between Moscow State University of Railway Engineering and “SkyWay Technologies Co.” was concluded. The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies while designing, developing and implementing SkyWay transport in transportation infrastructure.

The very fact of this final recognition is easily traceable in the official Moscow State University of Railway Engineering newspaper «Инженер транспорта» (Transport Engineer) №16 (824) dated December 22, 2017, where on page 3, in the article «На чём обогнать самолёт» (How to Overtake an Airplane) it is clearly written: «Нельзя не отметить, что 7 декабря было подписано соглашение о комплексном сотрудничестве между ЗАО «Струнные технологии» и нашим университетом. » (It should be noted that on December 7, an agreement on comprehensive cooperation was signed between “SkyWay Technologies Co.” and our university.) http://miit.ru/content/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BA%D0%B0.pdf?id_vf=792053

-- End of сomment by Igor Koiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• From a first reaction to this, I think including the Russian project as a 'test site' and an 'abandoned project' is unnecessary. They are both based on third-party assessments of the same material - and would be better to use the original than refer to a third-party especially when two different articles have resulted in two different interpretations of the same material. I promote removing the Russian project from the 'abandoned projects' which is basically repetition of the same source material, if from two different sources. It's either a test site or an abandoned project; not both. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It is not as simple as user who calls themselves "Igor Koiro" says. Two facts are mentioned here. 1) Discussion of SkyWay in Russian government panel. 2) MSUoRE conclusion/collaboration about SkyWay. Let's consider them one by one.

1. Supporters of Skyway widely promoted the information that the Ministry of Transport of Russian Federation had recognized Skyway as innovative technology. I don't think that this fact is important at all and I don't think that Indian source lies adding "but only in theory". As it is given in the translation (quite correct one) that was a panel for import-substituting discussion. The only purpose of it was to find local products and technologies worth investing. According to the conclusion where it was asked to "present a project for applications... in specific operation conditions" there was not enough information to make a decision. Paraphrasing that we may say that there was no practical confirmations of the Skyway's work or that it is only theoretical concept which is not far from "innovative but only in theory". The mistake of the article was to use quotes. Anyway this fact gives us nothing. After 3 years there is no any evidence that Ministry of Transport selected this technology for import substitution or that they plan any other collaboration with Skyway. We can just remove it or at least remove the duplication. And I don't think that this phrase compromises the Indian article in any way.
2. There was no lie about assessment of Skyway technology by specialists of MSUoRE in 2008. The original document is available here [40] though it cannot be used in the article (primary source, self-promoted resource). But Italian article is probably wrong about 2018. The article it references [41] is dated by 2010 and I don't know about any planned pilot projects in 2018. It is not quite correctly to say that "ten years after that event specialists of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering realized their mistakes, appreciated the works of Anatoly Yunitskiy and offered cooperation". One of the specialists who did first assessment, professor Zylev (Зылев) still criticize Skyway. At the same time there really was information about some agreement signed between MSUoRE and SkyWay in 2017. There were no details and very few comments from University about it. Supporters of the project evaluate this fact as full acknowledgment of Skyway by this University. There was also a video with prof. Vladimir Fridkin who supported the technology. But there was no 3rd party resources covering it, and video was promoted by Skyway sites. So as we can see there is no consensus about the technology from the University staff.Dron007 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007: They keep using this argument that the MSUoRE has rethought its assessment and is now collaborating with SkyWay to change the article content saying things like 'but they realized afterwards that they were wrong about Yunitskiy and they are now collaborating with him'. This assumption seems really bad faith as it assumes that even if they did change their mind and provide approval, why is that decision important if it hasn't caused them to change their plans. Are they now planning to actually build something in Russia? I wonder what they agreed upon in 2017. I suppose if it meant anything they'd say what is was. Did the Italian article really use the Stringer article as a primary source? I checked and translated part of that article and it didn't really seem to say much about anything provable. Is it just coincidence that it's called "Stringer.com" [i.e. string-er]? I think it would be safe to remove Russia from the 'abandonded projects' as it uses the Italian reference and besides it's already in the test sites. Better to improve this reference to a test site than mention it twice if the information is unverified. We can always put it back later but I think this is creating confusion at present. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not planning to build something in Russia and I doubt that University is deciding that. Yes, this Italian article [42] has link to Stringer under link with words "Già nel 2007 e nel 2018, gli specialisti della Moskow State University of Railway Engineering". "Stringer" is just coincidence and it doesn't look like a reliable source for me.Dron007 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:So according to the Indian Economic Times article from 2017 testing happened in 2008 and ... last year? This seems a really bad basis for making a claim about the second assessment! So this is what we have then: the Indian article suggests 2016. SkyWay say that they renegotiated with the MSUoRE in 2017 and the Italian article says 2018? Even if we assume that the 2018 meeting was a mistake, did they really do a second assessment and what did they decide? It is safe to say that this took place in 2016 - does anyone else mention this? This needs to be fixed up before it causes even more problems. For the 'Background' I think it is accurate to conclude from the Indian article the following reliable information (that can be quickly fixed) :

− ::*"An assessment by the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering found that this technology was "not viable and unsafe".[ECT]"

− ::Although this doesn't include the years of assessment, this information is repeated anyway with more detailed information in the 'test sites'. I'll work on this later. We just have to find clearer references or make sure that all the information we do include in the 'test sites' is correct. Thanks for your interest and patience. It is really hard to do this is a way that won't upset people, isn't it?–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting claims about MSUoRE assessment and test project in Ozery (Moscow area)

Different sources make various claims about the MSUoRE releasing assessments of SkyWay technology. They also claim that there was a test project in Ozery, a Moscow suburb, that was constructed and later taken apart. Some claim assessments were made in 2008 and 2016. Others claim 2007 and 2018. Some claim that contracts were signed between MSUoRE and SkyWay in 2017 although we have no idea why and to what end. We still have no verifiable references to these events. Please don't include YouTube films, uploaded images to commons, maps, primary sources like legislation or copies of contracts because we can't use them. At the moment, there is no actual information about the test site at all; only about the assessment. When we have verifiable descriptions of the deconstructed Moscow test site, I propose we create a new heading for 'Technology Assessment' which includes information about the assessment as opposed to the 'Test sites' in Ozery and Marjina Horka. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is a google translation of what the Norwegian article says about the Ozery project. They even have a photo of it. Note that I haven't been able work out yet what they are actually using to verify this. Otherwise they don't discuss any actual testing projects.

"Testing of SkyWay in Oziory- The first full-scale test installation was established in 2001 in the Russian city of Oziory with funds allocated by the politician Aleksandr Lebed. This installation was shut down and deconstructed after a few years."

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• An issue was brought up the user Andrew Postelniak concerning the assessment of SkyWay by MSUoRE, the year this took place and the decisions they made. Any comments are welcome :

The conclusion about the assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering from 2008 is already outdated.

In early 2018, the technology underwent new expertise, and this time a positive conclusion was given. Here is a link from the official site of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering (in Russian):

[43]

They write: “The company "SkyWay" received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport. Certificates are issued for a unibus model U4-210 and a unibike model U4-621, which can be seen at the test site of transport - EcoTechnoPark. Today, string transport is a de facto separate type of transport, so certification was carried out to comply with the requirements of the regulatory documents of urban electric transport: Unibus U4-210 Certificate PDF, Unibike U4-621 PDF Certificate...

...SkyWay signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation with the institution “Moscow State University of Railway Engineering”. A positive conclusion was made by the university on the work“ Preliminary Evaluation of the Development Prospects and the Field of Use of Innovative String-Rail Transport of SkyWay Rack Type".

Consider adding information about this assessment to the article, and delete or minify information about the old assessment from 2008. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is this: will the positive assessment in 2018 actually result in new collaborations between Russia or the MSUoRE in the future? A negative assessment can be used as an argument for not applying a technology. This is referred to as a reason in secondary sources for non-implementation. But a positive assessment has to result in some type of proposal for actual implementation somewhere. Or it has to be used by a secondary source as the basis for either actual projects or at least the proposal of such projects. There also has to be secondary referral to original documentation. An agreement of comprehensive cooperation is great. But what are they going to do about it? There is a now a request to find actual proposals of possible collaboration or implementation of these assessments because the assessment itself is unusable as a claim in itself, or failing this references to a secondary source which describes some actual implications for this positive assessment.

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

More references on this matter:

[44] and [45] (section "Струны под сертификатом" in the second link)

They write: "The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies in the design, development, and implementation of string transport in the transport infrastructure. The agreement is long-term, it is related not only to extensive scientific and technical cooperation but also to analytical and socio-cultural activities. It will be especially interesting for graduates and young professionals who have graduated from MSUoRE, because their career horizons will expand in the near future."

I didn't find other links so far. The university is a governmental institution, so I think the main idea of this assessment is not that they will implement some commercial project(s) together but that the technology is technically feasible and is not "unsafe" anymore as it used to be in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay in Vietnam

It has been claimed that SkyWay is extending its operations to Vietnam. I suppose it's not all that surprising. I read this information in an anecdotal (wholly negative) description of their operations. Verifiable references are, however, still lacking. According to one of the SkyWay websites they had a meeting there in June and July 2018. Lo and behold there are SkyWay facebook pages and websites in Vietnamese as well.[46]. If they only had meetings there and there are no verifiable references about these meetings, we can't really include anything about this in the article. But if you find any verifiable resources please include them below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Skyway in Chicago is actually something else

There is a Skyway in Chicago. But it's not actually a Russian company: it's a toll bridge. See a YouTube film about it here: [47]. There are lots of different Skyways around the world that refer to things like moving pathways at airports and actual companies who just share the same name. There's even a third-person platformer on steam called Skyway:[48]. But in a few places people are posting to SkyWay threads stories about how someone's mother had committed fraud on her grandschildren to help fund a 'Skyway' project in Chicago USA. They seemed to think it was the same one. I can't actually find any proof of such allegations. It seems unlikely despite all the current move towards deregulation happening there that our Belarusian SkyWay will end up in the United States in any real way. But with the current uncomfortable familiarity between the leaders of these great super-powers, anything's possible. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I was checking links in AfD page and found that this one [49] lists several pages with another "Skyway Group" company not related to the discussed one.Dron007 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Important disambiguation from this link: "SkyWay Group Inc." is also a company name in the United States. Apparently "SkyWay Aero, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SkyWay Group, Inc., and is focused on all aspects of aircraft acquisition, brokerage and sales" [of aircraft]. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay in India

Still unsourced article on the SkyWay scandal in India that is still to be verified. It's in English and was published in 'The Times of India' July 21 - 2017

BJP leader attacks minister over skyway skyway project

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/bjp-leader-attacks-minister-over-skyway-project/articleshow/59690474.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice requested: because of changes to title heading, the Dharamsala project is now in a heading entitled 'abandoned projects'. We now have 2 articles on India/SkyWay negotiations. Neither of them say that the project has been 'abandoned'. They question its validity. The Norwegian article suggests that this project is still planned in 2020. I suggest until we have confirmation otherwise, we move India to 'Future projects'. I also suggest we follow the Indonesian model and call it 'planned projects' not 'future projects'; they are after all planned projects. Planned projects happen in the future but 'future projects' could mean a lot of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay on Wikipedia - Czech, Hungarian & Norwegian

You can still find Czech and Norwegian language Wikipedia articles on ‘SkyWay’. The Hungarian article, mentioned above, was deleted on 9 August 2018 and the reason for it being removed was 'doubtful legitimate use'. The Czech language version seems really terrible. In structure it is sort of similar to what we used to have before November 2018. What makes it terrible is the fact that there are absolutely no references at all to any source material, verified or unverified as far as I could tell. It seems after looking in its history that it was started in April 2018. There have been about 10 changes to it in its 10 month history and the first posting is very similar to what it is now. We certainly don't want to emulate that one and I hope they get some sense and take it down soon. You can see it here:

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyWay

The Norwegian SkyWay, however, is much better clearer and unambiguous in its display and language use. You can see it here:

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyWay

What's good about it? Take a look. It's short, concise and has a great list of references. I should note here that it uses regulatory warnings - a lot of the same ones as in the English article - as verifiable references. Maybe the rules are different in Norway but we’ve been roasted for doing this in the recent deletion request.

The Norwegians actually started working on it in September 2017. The article has changed a lot since then. This was the opening paragraph:

"SkyWay Capital (also called Yunitskiy String Transport, Rail Sky Way and RSW Systems) is a finance concept which has as its face the British company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. The model is a combination of public finance and network marketing."

At this time the article was clearly about a specific business. The article was probably actually called ‘SkyWay Capital’ then. The article today is now completely different. It’s more about the technology. Although this may seem problematic, nonetheless the new article is short, concise and looks well researched with a great list of references some of which I’ve already included above.

The thing that does unite these articles (even the Hungarian one which has been removed) is that they are all called simply ‘SkyWay’. Maybe we should also consider simplifying the name of this article from ‘SkyWay Group’ to ‘SkyWay’ since we're having problems with the fact that very few references actually use terms like the ‘SkyWay Group’ to refer to these companies. We’d be able to include links to the foreign articles as well. The English article, after all, already touches on a variety of concepts – the group of companies, its marketing of the skyway technology, assessment and testing of this technology as well as Yutniskiy’s involvement. Would all these things be better summed up with simple use of ‘SkyWay’ rather than ‘SkyWay Group’ which suggests only a plural of companies? Maybe just ‘SkyWay’ would do this better? Just putting the idea out there to see what others think. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• HOW ARE THE NORWEGIAN AND ENGLISH ARTICLES DIFFERENT? I translated whole sections of the Norwegian article. Below is list of the Norwegian headings and a summary of their contents which helps to explain why the English and the Norwegian articles are so different. SKYWAY in Norwegian structures the article and classifies the information in a different way and according to different categories. Here's how they do it:

KONSEPT ('concept'): The technology as an idea of an elevated transportation system is proposed in a few sentences.

UTTESTING ('testing'): A few concise sentences describe proposed test sites. It starts with the deconstructed test-site Oziory (Moscow area) in 2001 (I've requested their resource for this so we can include it too). This is followed by a brief description of the proposed test-site in Lithuania which was cancelled in 2014. They finish with a brief description on the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus without actually naming it.

PLANLAGTE PROSJEKTER ('planned projects'): This starts with a brief description of the projects planned in India and Indonesia. Here they are quoting an article which discusses arrangments in made in Jakarta at the 'Universitas Indonesia'; they don't mention Jorong. They don't mention the United Arab Emirates either. They also mention a test project planned at university in Melbourne, Australia, but don't mention the fact that it was cancelled. I imagine however that this is because their article is out-of-date but nonetheless we have to verify our Indonesian source and to ask why it differs to what the Norwegians claim.

SKYWAY CAPITAL : This section is on the activities of the fundraiser company who sell the shares of specific companies. More recent research suggests that the information in the Norwegian article is incomplete although it should be said here that it' claims are of specific relation to activities in Norway.

I've come to the conclusion that although the two articles are different this can be largely explained by the fact that these differences are related to country specific factors and the fact that their article is now out-of-date. I suggest, however, that we update our reference to the project at Flinders University in Melbourned and check the Indonesian reference.

Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay in Slovenian

Here's a link to an article in Slovenian, published 31 May 2018. Note that from what I can tell it doesn't actually say so much about whether there is any specific activity in Slovenia. But it is very informative about the complexity of the group of companies, the connection between different company groups, what the money could actually be used for of investors and the chance of people actually making any money out of it, and interesting facts like how you are rewarded for bringing along three friends to meetings and convincing them to invest in shares. There are photos of Yunitskiy and Kudryashov (SkyWay Capital). Request for verification and possible translation of this interesting material. Here is the link:

https://siol.net/digisvet/novice/kdo-so-rusi-ki-lovke-stegujejo-po-slovenskem-denarju-468937

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

WHO ARE THESE RUSSIANS HUNTING FOR SLOVENIAN MONEY?

31 May 2018 by Matic Tomšič

See the Zaxander (talk · contribs) talk page for the complete translation. Included below, however is a summary of the contents of this article. It makes pretty clear exactly what happened in Slovenia with pretty broad conclusions about the role of Yunitskiy, the SkyWay technology and SkyWay Capital which is closely involved in the funding operation. I tried to be really careful about how I worded this summary, and I encourage you to check the original or the translation before you use any of these facts in the article.

SUMMARY:

• A ‘SkyWay’ meeting for potential investors was held in December 2017 at ‘Hotel Center’ in Novo Mesto, Slovenia. The first event had already been held in September of the same year.
• SkyWay is a cable transport system designed by Anatoly Yunitskiy in the eighties. Yunitskiy, who is the primary representative today of the SkyWay Group, is making lofty claims about this technology.
• Although Yunitskiy still produces prototypes of his technology, no pilot projects have been realised. A negative assessment was made of this technology in 2008 (MSUoRE) because it was considered too dangerous for passengers. In 2016 the Russian Ministry of Transport decided it was innovative but only in theory.
• SkyWay Capital – the primary fund raiser of SkyWay projects – operates within the SkyWay Group; it has been seeking potential investors all over the world.
• According to this company a polluted future and the end of all life on earth can be avoided by investing in SkyWay infrastructure. All they need is your money. They promise you high returns on any investments in shares or options.
• Although it’s hard to tell because of the different companies in the SkyWay Group, it seems that the First Skyway Invest Group Ltd. (registered in London) is selling these shares.
• The potential success of this company is dependent on the success of the technology; when it succeeds the price of its shares will increase. Seeing that there are still only prototypes in Belarusian fields, this seems unlikely.
• SkyWay Capital ultimately absolves itself of any liability and offers no guarantee on returns to investors; furthermore it states that its shares are not valid in Russia or Australia.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay at trade shows and technology fairs

Include below information about all trade fairs where actual SkyWay technology had a stall of formally presented physical examples of vehicles. Information about the test site in Ozery, Moscow can be included in the already existing sub-heading above. Include below information about the 'Innotrans' trade fair or the Governmental summit in the UAE. Apparently there was also a presentation at a university in Indonesia. In the article in the future we should probably create a new heading for 'Technology proposals' or something similar. Please only include verifiable third-party assessments and not releases from either SkyWay or advertising from the trade fairs because we can't use them. You can just tell us when and where these events happened if you don't have the verifiable references. We want to know about them but extraneous links to them we can't use aren't really necessary. The individual entries below include the official EVENT title, WHEN the event was held, WHERE it was held and afterwards a description of WHAT actually took place with third-party assessments if you have found any. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

SITCE

• EVENT: 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE)

WHEN - July 2018

WHERE - City Solutions Singapore Expo, Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Singapore

WHAT - "Skyway Technologies Co. from Belarus presented its vision of an elevated rail system that can also run a tram beneath it."

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/gateless-gantries-suspended-trams-among-public-transport-10512540

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

EcoFest

• EVENT: EcoFest

WHEN - August 2018

WHERE - EcoTechnoPark, Marjina Horka (Belarus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Innotrans

• EVENT: Innotrans 2018

WHEN - September 18-September 21

WHERE = Berlin Messe, Germany

WHAT -

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay MARKETING - request for help on new heading

Using material from recent translations of verified sources and the discussion I started above on SkyWay marketing techniques, I've written the first draft of a new section for this article. Influenced by the Wikipedia article on SkyWay in Norwegian, I suggest we put this heading towards the end of the article. They call it 'SkyWay Capital' but I suggest we just simplify it to 'marketing'. The heading on 'Regulatory Warnings' can follow. Find the text below. I've tried to use facts we know are true from verified references and absolutely avoid making assumptions that be misconstrued as WP:Synth . I’m requesting here the urgent help of others to help get this right. I've listed the references below using a simple numerical system. Some are already used in the article and some we still need to find (like a reliable reference to the Berlin trade fair in 2018). You may have a suggestion for better wording or additional references. These facts are actually included in many of the references and the better it is verified the quicker it can be included in the article and the less chance it has of being questioned by sockpuppets. I look forward to any suggestions for improvement or ideas. Remember - we can always add to it later when more verifiable links exist, but this article still lacks any decent discussion of the workings of the companies it is supposed to represent and this needs better representation ASAP. If the Norwegians can do it so can we!

Marketing

The SkyWay Group has been seeking potential investors all over the world using controversial various forms of marketing and SkyWay Capital is their primary fundraiser.[1] They promote investment by making elaborate claims about SkyWay technology using Crowdfunding[2] and Multi-level Marketing.[3] Here investors are promised cash prizes for convincing three friendsother people to attend SkyWay sales meetings.[1]

SkyWay Capital attempts to sell the shares and options of shell companies like “Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.”[4] and “First Skyway Group Ltd.”[1] These companies are registered in places like London where they only have a postal address and the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven.[2] They offer enormous returns on investment. Such returns, however, depend on the success of the technology.[1] Although SkyWay has exhibited at trade fairs like the 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE)[6] and InnoTrans 2018 in Berlin,[7] they are yet to realize an actual project.[2]

The marketing of SkyWay Group companies has attracted the attention of financial regulators around the world. The Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) in Belgium warns that these companies “exhibit characteristics of a pyramid scheme" [8] whereas the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) in New Zealand warns that they "could be involved in a scam".[9] Despite the elaborate promises in their marketing, the SkyWay Group ultimately absolves itself from any liability in their contracts on potential money loss. Furthermore, in no country has it attempted to legitimately register itself with an official financial authority.[1]

References:

[1] Slovenian article

[2] Crowdfunding is canvasing via the internet and is mentioned in many articles but also on SkyWay promotional material. We already are using one verified reference that refers to it specifically: ref name="letteraemme" (Italian article)

[3] Skyway is also not shy about blatantly advertising their MLM techniques either. Still better to have a specific reference for 'MLM techniques' also known as 'pyramid marketing' where individuals at meetings invite friends and family members to attend and invest. Request here for specific link.

[4] https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/transportas/transporto-revoliucija-zadantis-rusas-siauliams-mauna-kvailio-kepure.d?id=65806180 - this is the claim made about SkyWay Capital in the Norwegian article and this is their reference.

[5] Include here a reference to which describes the fact that there is only a postal address in London. The Slovenian article mentions this specifically but it would be better to have another reference here.

[6] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/gateless-gantries-suspended-trams-among-public-transport-10512540

[7] A reference to the innotrans trade fair in Berlin Messe in September 2018. As it only has to confirm that they attended it doesn’t have to be highly descriptive. It just has to be completely independent of SkyWay and the fair itself.

[8] secondary reference to FSMA warning here

[9] secondary reference to FMA warning here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• 1) Can we support "controversial forms of marketing" by some source?

2) I couldn't find in Slovenian article confirmation that "SkyWay Capital is the primary fundraiser within the SkyWay Group". It is one of the fundraisers. We should be careful with such wordings especially if official information from RSW Systems or Yunitskiy doesn't says exactly the same. Maybe it is better just quote the sources.

@Dron007:This is what the article says: "SkyWay Capital operates under SkyWay Group; their main task is to raise funds for the further development of the cableway. SkyWay Capital is the one who has been searching for years for people to invest their money all over Europe and elsewhere in the world." You're right they don't say they're the primary fundraiser.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

3) "Here investors are promised cash prizes for convincing three friends to attend SkyWay sales meetings" phrase looks like incorrect interpretation or translation. In original they say about business model named "bring in three friends". So there was no statement about exactly 3 friends. It is just a short explanation of MLM scheme.

@Dron007:This exactly what they say: "Proof that shares in making money with an investment in SkyWay Capital are of secondary importance is a document that discloses the details of the partner program in SkyWay Capital. The core of the partner program is in fact a well-known business model 'join and bring in three more friends'. Anyone who buys stock packages or stock options and then persuades another person to get into a hierarchy of investors in SkyWay Capital below it receives a cash prize. Since SkyWay Capital (yet) does not have a commercial product that would generate revenue, it is for the time being the only source of funds to pay these prizes, according to the statements in the document, most likely a cash inflow of payments from individuals on organized events and through Facebook with promises of astronomical returns recruits promoters SkyWay Capital."

4) It needs to be verified but it seems that there are no active company in London now. It was closed and moved to the Bitish Virgin Islands. Mentions in sources may be outdated.

@Dron007:The Slovenian article actually says it is 'hard to tell' what they are doing and this was the problem of having shell companies in places like London. I think they have so many companies registered in places like this precisely to create this problem.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

5) "Potential success of these companies, however, is dependent on the success of the technology." do we need to have this opinion? Dron007 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:This seemed an important point to mention the connection between the company making money and the success of the technology. And if we don't mention this fact then I have no reason to mention the trade fairs. This is what they say: "The success of the company will depend on their product - in this case, this is SkyWay. But this is still far from commercialization, because for now, prototypes are still running along the Belarusian fields." Let me know what you think.

• References for taking part in Innotrans 2016 and 2018: [50] [51] [52] (all Russian) Dron007 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:Great! Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Secondary reference to FMA/FSMA warnings: [53] (English) Dron007 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:Thanks for that. I was worried about the 'controversial' as well. The Slovenian article says SkyWay Capital is selling the shares of a shell company which may be in London (but it says it's really hard to tell); the Norwegian article specifies a different company but I can't find their reference. I'll try to restate it for now in a fashion which clears up the ambiguities you mention. The Norwegians have a whole section dedicated to the workings of 'SkyWay Capital' as the fundraising tool of SkyWay'. What do you think of the title, 'marketing'? Thanks again. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:This was my justification: They are using crowdfunding. They are using MLM. MLM and crowdfunding are controversial. Therefore they are using controversial marketing techniques. This is WP:synth, right? Precisely what I was trying to avoid! -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I've made some changes to the marketing section based on your observations. Before I attempt to publish it, I need to know what you think about the sentence on the dependence of success of the company on the success of the technology. Thanks! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy and NPOV needs to stop

The advocacy on both sides needs to stop. It is clear that someone related to the company is attempting to get it deleted based on the number of socks voting for such. It also appears that many SPA users are only here to add negative information. An example is this - "In 2014 the SkyWay Group planned to build its first test site in Lithuania, but this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud.[8]" - which is negative information written from a non-NPOV. That is NOT what the sources say. It is also the whole story according to some other references. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH needs to be removed from the page. If no one wants to take the initiative, I will gladly do so this week. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I described above in the section on the Lithuanian scandal on the talk page problems that existed. I read all the references and I told the story as I had understood it. What was there in the article at the time didn't at all resemble what actually happened. I removed the facts that were outright lies and I requested that someone else tell this story again in a consequent way. No one has but it'd be great if you did. I obviously shouldn't. Also, we now have a new reference on the Lithuania scandal which I haven't translated yet. It is used in the section on marketing as they use it in the Norwegian article to discuss 'SkyWay Capital'. Thanks for your help with this article; your good advice was listened to and understood.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaxander, please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is not about the story how you understand it. It is about what is published in reliable source. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is about the story as I understand it. The talk page is obviously where you have to verify facts that are in question. I read the many articles on the Lithuania scandal and I communicated on the talk page the facts as they were stated in the articles. The whole affair is complex and confusing. I removed, however, the blatant lies and I requested that other users take a fresh look at the facts in the original articles and change the article based on these facts. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:The recent deletion request was a learning experience but it was also a disturbing one. Seeing a wave of people adopting the names of Belarusian SkyWay critics to peddle lies and make false accusations was to say the least disquieting. The intention has never been to include negative information; it has always been to include documented facts. There is just the blatant fact that all verifiable sources are if not just critical downright scathingly critical of SkyWay. But if there have been inadvertent negative information unfairly communicated then it should be said to ensure it doesn't happen again. The problem has been recently brought up of the difficulty of including positive assessments if they haven't actually led to instances of documented application. The (negative) Russian assessment is probably a good place to start. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Some users even didn't try to find any positive information: there are references about EcoTechnoPark, about the new assessment of the technology in 2018, about the project in the UAE etc. At the same time, they keep finding and adding new sources about financial irregularities. "There is just the blatant fact that all verifiable sources are if not just critical downright scathingly critical of SkyWay" - this is obviously not true, and it cannot be true - all sources cannot be critical, some users just don't want to find neutral/non-critical references. So I agree that this article should be edited by more experienced Wikipedia users/editors.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The link is probably wrong but the statement that "this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud" is correct. Look here [54] "The reason for expelling the project from Lithuania was the statement of the Central Bank that the activities of Yunitskiy’s companies were fraudulent". The case is much wider of course, but it is its essense. Dron007 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This link [55] also states that "The investigation lasted for almost three years and ended with nothing... Just recently, the project obtained support from the government of the United Arab Emirates..." So probably better statement is "this project was canceled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud, which, however, were not confirmed and later removed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Bank of Lithuania still warns about illegal activity: [56] Dron007 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Sources can be critical without being negative. No one is looking for either positive or negative criticism. They are looking for facts. Anything else is irrelevant. This is what the verifiable references say: the project in Lithuania was stopped by the Lithuanian government in 2014. They discovered years afterwards that they couldn't prosecute SkyWay for being a pyramid scheme. They didn't say that they were wrong about stopping the project. This doesn't reverse any decisions the government may have made. Please read the summary above for a detailed discussion of the Lithuanian scandal. Furthermore, verifiable articles published recently have shown that Yunitskiy and company were unsuccessful in suing the Lithuanian government. They lost the case. Nothing in the verifiable references indicates that the Lithuanian government has gone back on its decisions:[57]. Also personal attacks on my credibility don't help anyone. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to know what justifies the accusation that 'many' Single-Purpose Accounts are negatively influencing this page. I'm not aware of any user who has recently contributed to this article who has not contributed to other discussions on different subjects; I know because I checked their history. I've also contributed to other discussions and I wrote an article on a musical instrument. So if you don't specifically mean my account or any other recent contributors, who do you mean? It should also be noted that the user Andrew-Postelniak was created on 4 March 2019; they have yet to contribute to any other discussion apart from the recent deletion request of this article. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

these accusations have nothing in common with reality. I am not a native English speaker, so I edit other articles in my native language, and here on Wikipedia, the history of editing is saved for each language separately. This account was created for the English language. I also want to draw the attention of more experienced users that user Zaxander violates WP:PA and often comments the contributor, not on content. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I welcome the advice and participation of more experienced users. The site needs help and will improve when it has more varied participants. But as far as the amusing claim that I make accusations about other users and not content: these are not accusations; they are observations of fact about when the account was created and where its attention has been directed. Claiming anything else is just personal and is entirely unhelpful. If anyone wants to bring clearly necessary changes of content to this page, please post it here first for discussion, confirmation and consensus among other users. This is a contentious topic so discussion is necessary. Please assume that others are operating in good faith and don't get angry and start throwing accusations at people if they don't agree with your changes.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaxander & Andrew-Postelniak, here's an "observation of fact." You both are WP:SPAs by definition. Many SPAs come to Wikipedia with a WP:COI or use the site for WP:ADVOCACY. One user wanting to solely document the company's shortfalls with one user solely wanting to remove them appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV on both sides, hence the heading of this thread. Experience does not matter so "more experienced" editors do not govern what goes into the page. However, SPA activity does cause the raising of eyebrows, especially when there are NPOV issues. What determines what goes into the page is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, coupled with consensus when there is a disagreement about content. Please stick to those guidelines and refrain from advocacy as I have suggested at the beginning of this thread. The WP:TE needs to stop in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:So people really do think I'm a WP:SPA. How awful. But being unhappy with the fact that people think something negative about you is about as unhelpful as throwing baseless accusations. Far better to learn from the experience and try to get better in the future. Thanks for your observation. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not negative to think you are an SPA and you shouldn't be unhappy about it. It's simply letting you know that you need to be aware of guidelines when editing and refrain from WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:You're right of course. Personal feelings are irrelevant (still I read the description of SPA and it's hard to not be disheartened that others interpret what you're doing as single purpose). In retrospect it's almost ironic that the two parties who are supposedly in conflict actually helped each other to fix the article in a useful way that could help prevent another dramatic deletion request (see discussion below on the Dharamsala project). Assuming that one's intentions are essentially good and that people only want the facts is helpful and produces useful changes. I've learned from this how important it is to assess every new posting on its own merits and not on the basis of supposed intentions. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:I don't want to remove all critical information from the article, I just want the article to be written in a neutral tone. At the moment, I think it does not meet WP:NPOV. Some examples: "these companies have been accused by regulators and other media" - the media is not a prosecutor to accuse someone. Mass media can inform, draw attention, express the view, emphasize etc, but not accuse. As for the regulators, they warn investors, they do not accuse the company. Then the whole "Marketing" section - "Although SkyWay has exhibited... they are yet to realize an actual project" - the reference just states that they showed their vehicles at the exhibition, all the rest is original research WP:NOR of the contributor. "They offer enormous returns on investment" and so on.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for these useful observations - they are constructive and helpful. I had a reply from the main contributor to the Wikipedia Norway 'SkyWay' with a verifiable source they refer to. Unfortunately you can't view this article in Norway without paying. In this article claims about promises of 'enormous' returns on investment are further confirmed. It's also clearly stated in the Slovenian article as well. But this sounds like original research especially if it is not part of a quotation and this has to change as quickly as possible. This is what the Slovenian article says: "All the supporters who will now buy shares in the company even before entering the stock exchange promise high returns - according to one of the Slovenian promoters SkyWay Capital, who has already participated in many monetary schemes in the past, even up to one thousand times" [58]. I think it's terrible that it sounds like these were empty claims; but they clearly do. In any case I've translated the Norwegian article entitled 'Pyramid Concept - Belarusian air-castles sold to Norwegians' and when I've got permission from the writer I'll make sure its contents are accessible. Please note that the title of the Italian article is "Skyway: the 'flying tram' company which has never realized a project". But I see the problem with the potential of this looking like original research and I'll try to change it. I can't think of a way to word it better yet. I'll also look at every other point you bring up. It's important to make sure it not only 'sounds' like it is neutral point-of-view but it is well backed up with verifiable references.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:"They promise enormous returns on investment" changed to "According to Tomšič, SkyWay Capital offers enormous returns on investment, even 'up to a thousand times'." Better? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:New text: " The success of this company "depends on their product" - the SkyWay technology "which is far from commercialization". " The next sentence on the Innotrans 2018 and the SITCE in Singapore is not so easy to improve. I propose we remove it. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:New text: " The SkyWay Group has exhibited this technology at trade fairs like the 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE)[22] and InnoTrans 2018 in Berlin.[23] To date, however, they have not yet realized a project[3] outside Belarus. " Any better? I'm happy to try to word this differently or cut it out entirely but let me know what the problem is. Is this incorrect information or does it just sound not neutral? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Proposed changes to "These companies have been accused by regulators...". NEW TEXT: "The SkyWay Group makes ambitious and unsupported claims about their technology called SkyWay [1] (or 'String Transport')[2] and financial regulators have warned the public about making risky investments in SkyWay Group projects.[3]" This communicates the same information but it is clearly better supported by the links and doesn't suggest that the regulators are accusing anyone - just warning the public about their unsubstantiated claims. This is clearly better, but is it good enough? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander: In my opinion, the problem of neutrality of this article is not only in the formulation of sentences (although in this too) but also in the fact that critical information is repeated several times in different sections of the article. My initial suggestions for improving the article:

1) Instead of "The public has been warned..." I propose this text:

"These companies are seeking potential investors all over the world for the development of its technology SkyWay or String Transport. The public has been warned by financial regulators about risky investments in SkyWay Group infrastructure projects". (words "ambitious but unsupported claims " must be proved - this is not a direct quote from the source).

2) The sentence "Anatoly Yunitskiy is the inventor..." can be removed from the beginning of the article - the same sentence is repeated in section "Background".

3) Section "Background" is not actually a background, it is a short summary of the article. I think this section can be reduced and renamed to the "Overview" or "Summary".

In the second paragraph of the "Background", I propose such changes: "Australia,[3] India,[5] Indonesia,[7], Lithuania[8] and the United Arab Emirates[9] started negotiating with the SkyWay Group, but the companies have not realized commercial projects yet, except for the test site called EcoTechnoPark in Belarus" (there is no Italy in the list of projects (canceled, postponed or planned), Italy forbade selling shares on their territory).

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for advice; changes above implemented. This suggestion has a few problems I think. Italy did start negotiating with SkyWay, however; we know that from the verified source. They just didn't get far enough to need the cancel the project yet. Maybe it belongs in 'postponed projects' as well and we just need another reference. The EcoTechnoPark is a test site so you can't really call it a commercial project. We have almost no verifiable references on this place. When we have them, let's first extend the description in the test site. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the "Background", I propose to leave only the first sentence, move the rest to the section "Regulatory warnings".

@Andrew-Postelniak:For now I removed the FSMA sentence which is repeated verbatim twice already. I don't think it's a problem to mention the countries individually but if the list gets longer we can always summarise it to 'many countries' if they are all included in the 'regulator warnings' section.

4) as for the section "Regulatory warnings": I see no reason to mark each country as a separate paragraph. Other countries may issue similar warnings in the future, and then the table of contents will bloat out an unreasonable size. I think that only Lithuania can be marked separately since there were proceedings with the prosecutor's office. Other text can be reduced to "Regulatory organisations and national banks in ..." (from the current section "Background").

@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree - it's also more similar to the way the Norwegian article discusses these regulatory warnings.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I moved the information about the activity of the prosecutor's office to the 'cancelled project' in Lithuania. This all grew in reaction to the scandal in Siauliai and the illegal sale of shares via crowdfunding. I added a request for this section to be extended based on the verifiable references. Perhaps this actually belong somewhere in the 'marketing' text since it involves crowdfunding. The best solution is probably to create a new heading called something like "Legal proceedings" which discusses how Lithuania took SkyWay to court, banned them from the country for illegal activities, and how later Yunitskiy and his wife were unsuccessful in suing the Lithuanian government for lost earnings. This is currently not mentioned at all as it doesn't really belong in either the 'cancelled projects' nor the 'regulatory warnings' heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander: I don't think we need to create a separate section "Legal proceedings". Everything related to one project can be described in one section. So if you have further information about the project in Lithuania (which includes legal proceedings regarding the project), you can probably insert it in the "Cancelled projects" - Lithuania. I mean, the section "Canceled projects" can include information on why the project was canceled and what happened next.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for this advice. I've collected the Lithuanian references into one place so I can read them consecutively (again), including the translation and the more recent article on the unsuccessful attempt of Yunitskiy to sue the Lithuanian government (this is by far the best which decribes the whole scandal in detail). I'll write a single simple text that refers to the whole Lithuania scandal and what happened in the courts there. I'll include it when it's finished in the 'cancelled projects' section. If people think it belongs in a separate heading they can always move it later. This may take awhile - I dread doing this but no one else seems to want to do it. I look to forward to hear what you think about the 'regulatory warnings' summary. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

5) "enormous returns" probably better to replace by "high returns".

@Andrew-Postelniak:I changed it what it says in the source - "astronomical" returns; we can always change it to high later. The source actually says "enormous returns" as well but it seems a stretch add "enormous" between quotation marks. We can always change it to high later without quotation marks. Hopefully I'll have a proposal for reducing the regulator warnings paragraphs to a single paragraph soon. This has to be done carefully and with attention to detail; it needs to be made clear which companies are warned against etc. May take some time and extra research. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not an exhaustive list, I will make other suggestions later this week.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think that the “Marketing” section should not contain duplicate information about the regulatory warnings. There is a separate section for this. And the fact that their marketing activity attracted the attention of financial regulators is mentioned in the "Overview". The last paragraph of the "Overview" can be reduced to "...marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy..." Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I removed the verbatim repetition of 'marketing techniques that have drawn the attention...' section from 'marketing'. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:A change has been made to the 'overview' as well. This sounds better and the information about the warnings is clearly communicated in the regulatory warnings section anyway. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line with this one IMHO. There is nothing wrong with putting positive information in a Wikipedia page as long as it is not done in a promotional way and it meets WP:NPOV. The same is for anything that may be deemed negative about a company. A company lays in the bed it makes, but we need to always make sure to adhere to NPOV standards as this isnt a Yelp nor is it a place for a company to promote itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice request for Dharamsala project: is it really 'abandoned'

Recent changes to article structure have resulted in creation of 'abandoned projects' and 'future projects' headings. This may create problems. India used to belong to an 'unrealized projects' category. These headings were changed by user:Britishfinance to make clear the difference between projects like the one in the United Arab Emirates which are still in planning and the rest which have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely. This was a good faith change to improve the article, but unfortunately the Dharamsala project has now ended up under a heading entitled 'abandoned projects'. We have 2 verifiable articles on India/SkyWay negotiations from 2017: [59] and [60]. Neither of them seem to say that the project has been 'abandoned'. They do question its validity and the Economic Times article is highly crtical. The Norwegian article, however, suggests that this project is still planned in 2020. So has it been abandoned? Can we find another reference which specifically refers to this project being stopped or something? I propose we do the following to remedy this problem:

• Until we have confirmation otherwise suggesting this Dharamsala project has been cancelled we move India to 'Future projects';
• We follow the Norwegian model and rename the section 'planned projects' not 'future projects'. Planned projects happen in the future but 'future projects' could mean a lot of things.
• We rename "abandoned" as something less negative like "cancelled" or "postponed"

Alternatively, you could also put them all back in a single category "unrealized projects" but I can see the point of the differentiating the projects that are still planned and the ones that have been cancelled. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The former suggestion seems to make sense to me. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

These changes have been introduced. Any suggestions are welcome to alternative better names for 'postponed projects' and 'planned projects'. Please note that the Norwegian 'SkyWay' article says specifically that the Dharamsala project is planned in 2020. The two verifiable references don't claim this. They do say that the project will be realized 'in three years'; this seems an insufficiently verified reason for actually stating 2020 until we have a verified source which discusses their exact arrangements. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

the project in India is inactive now (there are no active negotiations, construction etc.), so it is ok to call it "Postponed". The project in the UAE is active or "planned" in the meaning that it can be implemented in the future. However, "planned" can also mean that something was planned but was not implemented afterwards. It is true for India but not for the UAE. If you put projects in India and the UAE in one section, there may be the impression that some active work/negotiations are underway in India to implement the project in the future, although this is not the case.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree but the two references to the Indian affair don't actually state that the project has been postponed. The Norwegian article actually says the project is planned for 2020! We need more verifiable references that states exactly what happened. Is it really postponed? Who postponed it? Publish them here if you find any and we can update the article later. You happy with 'planned projects'? Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

definition of "postpone" in Cambridge Dictionary: "to delay an event and plan or decide that it should happen at a later date or time". Is the project in India active now? If not, then it is postponed. Or you can create and a new section - "Cancelled projects", and include there Australia, Lithuania, and Indonesia. "Postponed projects" - India, and "Planned projects" - the UAE.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:That sounds like a good idea to me that could fix ambiguity. If you want to make this change, it has consensus with me. If they ever cancel (or continue) the Indian project in the future we can always move it to another heading. This seems far better. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind such a classification (canceled, postponed and planned projects), but the current classification also suits me.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I also changed the wording of the background to beter reflect this. Check my changes and let me know what you think.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not have enough time this week to check this article regularly, but I will review it from time to time. I still think that the article should be reviewed by other more experienced contributors, and check for neutrality word combinations like these ones: "these companies have been accused by regulators and other media" - the media is not a court to accuse someone; the whole "Marketing" section ("...SkyWay attempts to sell the shares...", "Although SkyWay has exhibited.. they are yet to realize an actual project" etc. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks. I agree. Hopefully we'll fix these problems soon. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of the 'Regulatory Warnings' to a single paragraph

It has been pointed out a number of times that the 'Regulatory Warnings' section doesn't need to have individual headings for each country. The Norwegian article - although now out-of-date, does present the warnings in this way. I propose the following text. Please include your suggestions for further additions or reductions below :

Regulatory warnings

Many national banks and regulatory agencies have released warnings that companies from the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell shares in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. In 2014 an official statement was released by the Bank of Lithuania which warned investors that unidentified individuals invited Lithuanian residents to invest in "next-generation string transport" by acquiring on-line shares of the private limited company without a prospectus approved by a competent authority. Vaidas Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority made clear that this information would be disseminated widely so that “so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities”. Countries that have distributed this warning include Italy, Belgium and Norway. Since then warnings adjusted to the specific activities of SkyWay companies reported on in individual countries have been released in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, Germany, Greece and Slovakia.In December 2016, the Czech National Bank released a warning stating that a SkyWay Group company "Euroasian Rail Skyway Holding" was operating in the Czech Republic without a prospectus required by Czech law.. In April 2017 the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (EFSA) released a warning stating that the "First Skyway Invest Group Ltd" started offering its shares to the public without legal authorization to do so. In September 2017, the Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) issued a warning concerning Skyway Capital who were offering investment to the public without a prospectus approved by the FSMA, as required by Belgian law. The FSMA further stated that "the scheme proposed by SkyWay Capital exhibits the characteristics of a pyramid scheme". In January 2018 the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (the Italian Companies and Exchange Commission - CONSOB) – banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay shares in Italy.In July 2018 the Financial Markets Authority (New Zealand) released a warning stating that the Skyway Group "are not registered as a financial service provider in New Zealand and is therefore not permitted to provide financial services to New Zealand residents". The FMA further warned that the SkyWay Group "could be involved in a scam". In November 2018 the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority of Germany (BaFin) warned that the "First Skyway Group Limited" company lacked a sales prospectus for their shares. The Hellenic Capital Market Commission in Greece (HCMC) released a warning in the same month about various companies within the SkyWay group.In January 2019, the National Bank of Slovakia released a warning stating The most recent warning from the Bank of Slovakia states "that neither it nor any other supervisory authority of a European member state had approved a prospectus for the legal sale of SkyWay Group company shares".

-changes 14 March 2019 in an effort to reduce the text in length=Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:in this form, it is not a reduction, but simply merging of the current text of the section into one paragraph. In addition, information about Vaidas Cibas has been added, so here is even more text comparing to the current version. My suggestion remains the same: move the text from the section "Overview" and extend it slightly, like this:

"During 2014-2019, the regulatory organisations and national banks in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[1] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia[16] have warned the public that companies from the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell stocks (or shares) in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares".

I also think that the detailed listing of the names of regulatory organizations in different countries makes no sense, and simply increases the text of the article. The meaning of the warnings is the same - financial regulators have forbidden to sell shares on their territory or warned about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree with you. Unfortunately if you look in detail at the warnings which I have done it isn't so easy to summarise them in a single sentence. The Bank of Lithuania was the first regulatory agency which released a warning. I thought it was important to mention the fact that the head of this agency had particularly stated in a verifiable reference that he would distribute this warning so other countries knew about the illegal activity. They sent out this warning to many countries and it has been published word for word by places like Norway (previously unmentioned) and Italy. After this, however, the same countries released ADDITIONAL warnings about specificities relating to specific companies and individuals canvassing for them. Each warning is different and some of them have specifics that need to be mentioned such as the FMA and FSMA. I really see what you're saying, but if we are going to reduce the text we have to be aware of the these specificities. We can always reduce it later. The Norwegian article does this and it doesn't include information about half of the warnings we have access to today. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander: My suggestion remains the same. Yes, the text of these DIFFERENT warnings (Lithuania + other counties) is different but the meaning of the warnings is the same (as I wrote about it earlier). But I think we need to wait for what other contributors say about this. They may agree with you. I am also very tired today to continue this discussion, I suggest waiting for other comments.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for your input. Don't worry I think we need more consensus on this too. I think the problem is that some of these companies warn about different things (like the Greek warning which specifies a number of different companies and the individual - Greek people - who run them - this is not mentioned yet) but that's just what I think. Take your time there's no hurry and absolutely no pressure on you. And remember that I do agree with you; I want to reduce the text as well I just want to do it carefully and gradually so the possible variations between warnings are respected. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The regulatory warnings summary proposed today is considerably shorter. Note that Caibas has not been quoted in the current revision of the article. This seems to make a bit more sense of the regulatory warnings without putting unnecessary emphasis on them as is the case at present. Looking forward to anyone's responses to this. Note also that today this whole article was replaced by a stream of unindented, almost unpunctuated and completely unverified propaganda in terrible English which was fortunately directly removed by a bot:[61]. Check here or look in the history to see this recent attempt to radically change this article's content without regard to objectivity, truth let alone consensus among users. =Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 :DRAFT 2 - 15 March 2019

Regulatory warnings

Many national banks and regulatory agencies have warned the public that the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell shares in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. It Started after investigation in Lithuania In 2014 when the Bank of Lithuania released an official statement warning investors that unidentified individuals invited Lithuanian residents to invest in "next-generation string transport" by acquiring on-line shares of the private limited company which was selling them without a prospectus approved by a competent authority. Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority made clear that this information would be widely distributed “so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities”. Countries that have distributed this warning include Italy, Belgium and Norway. Since then warnings adjusted to the specific activities of SkyWay companies in individual countries have been released in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, Germany, and Greece. The most recent warning from the National Bank of Slovakia states "that neither it nor any other supervisory authority of a European member state had approved a prospectus for the legal sale of SkyWay Group company shares".(UTC)

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

What you need to do is find an independent secondary source that sums up the history of the warnings. You cannot use the agency that actually gave the warning as that would be original research. For instance, if the National Bank of Slovakia issued a press release with a warning, that would not be secondary nor would it be independent. We need a secondary source such as a news publication that wrote about the warning issued by the bank. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:Thanks yes this is the intention. Hopefully this problem will be fixed soon.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:I removed the direct quote from primary source. We already have secondary references to LBC, FSMA, FMA, Consob, EFSN & HNCN sources. The Norwegian article uses a BehindMLM site as a secondary source for Greek (HNCN) and German (BaFin) warnings, but I fear this is not really a verifiable source. So still missing good secondary references for CNB (Czech), SNB (Slovakia), BaFin (Germany) and Bank of Slovenia warnings. I propose we keep these notices until we have the secondary references, but waiting your advice on this. It's easy to remove these primary sources if necessary. I got the impression from reading the WP Guidelines on primary and secondary sources that it would be okay to use the press releases if a secondary source has been used previously to legitimize the primary source. Since the regulatory warnings are mentioned first in the 'Overview' I suggest we use the secondary sources here and the primary sources in the 'regulatory warnings' section if it has been previously sourced secondarily. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think the sentence "Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision..." is excessive. You can simply say, without losing meaning, that other countries have joined this warning. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I'll take a look at this and try to word it better. It just has to say that they distributed this warning really. Thanks for your input. I look forward to hear what you and CNMall41 think about the neutral point-of-view now. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added my suggestions regarding the sections "Marketing" and "Overview" in the "Advocacy and NPOV needs to stop"Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No one seems to want to answer the basic question about sourcing. What reliable secondary sources do you want to use for the regulatory warnings? That is where it starts. Wikipedia doesn't care about what you or I think should be written. It cares about what can be verified through the sources. Currently, I see primary sources which constitutes original research which is not acceptable. Let's just take the following: "The SkyWay Group is financing itself with crowdfunding[3] and other marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of international financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[9] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia.[16]" Who says they are financed through crowdfunding? That's not what the reference says. It says that the founder's website says that it has used crowdfunding. It also says they have placed ads to publicly sell shares (which is typical for a company). The reference doesn't say that it has "drawn the attention of international financial regulators." This was added and is WP:SYNTH. It may have, but the reference doesn't say that. Then, the references for each country listed are to the actual warnings. These are primary and also SYNTH. We cannot say they received warnings by using the actual warnings. We need a reliable secondary source which says so. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:There has been a request put out days ago for secondary references to these primary sources. I listed in detail the sources that already have secondary references (the FMA, LBC, FSMA, Consob, Greek, Greek and German (BehindMLM)) above. Some of these are already secondarily sourced. The FSMA reference which is secondarily sourced mentions Lithuania and Estonia. We don't have secondary references for CNS, SNB and Bank of Slovenia, or Norway). There is a whole section above to pool the secondary references to the primary sources. The section on regulatory warnings has been reduced to remove emphasis from this section. Sorry if it's not going fast enough for you. It's not going to help being impatient about the speed this is handled. The Norwegian article which is generally viewed positively used almost completely these primary references (and the BehindMLM). If you think we shouldn't reference the primary sources, take them out. I don't know, however, how other uses will react to this who see these references as a step up from direct primary sources. It's not like they are images from commons of primary sources like legislation or copies of contracts. They are mostly press releases from internationally recognized regulatory agencies. I agree it's a problem but you're the only one who is talking about it. The problematic W:Synth is another issue which needs to be handled. It seems to me that stating that 'many regulatory agencies have warned the public about the activities of SkyWay' is, however, unproblematic because there are secondary sources which state this. But if you can state this better, please do. I tried to collect references on the marketing techniques. They seem to be using many different marketing techniques but I could only find verifiable references that refer to the MLM techniques and crowdfunding. It shouldn't however sound like these are the only marketing techniques used (and it may well at present). They also place ads and the public has been warned about these ads (see Economy247 reference to the Greek HNBC warning). Maybe this needs to be mentioned as well. If you can say this better you are obviously welcome to make these changes. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CNMall41:There is nothing in your post which suggests you are actually being impatient at all; sorry for this. These are valid concerns but we are trying to address them. I'll try to do this in a consequent fashion later today if I can. I thank you for these helpful suggestions. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

New video regarding SkyWay Group

SkyWay uploaded a video regarding their company structure, division of responsibilities, methods, and clarification of activities at http://rsw-systems.com/news/skyway-economy (Note: For use by editors though not in the article itself per Wikipedia guidelines) ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 17:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)