Talk:SkyWay Group/Archive 1

Track structure
1) "Low span intervals (~50m)" -> Low span intervals (~40m) see map http://string-fraud.ru/5/images_5/1/55555.jpg When the road was building, the technology was violating

2). Anchoring support. -> 2. stretched the strings. -> 3. Establish a waypoint structure. Until now, the strings are not stretched. ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.110.118.81 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Safety and evaluation
And again the same thing: "An earlier prototype of String transport was tested in Russia. Initially the State Railways University in Moscow in 2008 stated that the project was "not viable". [4] This statement has changed to positive after proper scientific investigation. A conclusive statement of the State Railways University in Moscow was made on the completed work “Preliminary evaluation of the prospects for the development and use of innovative string-rail elevated transport “SkyWay”” with link to the Skyway's site. And no word about serious MVC with one of 'prototypes' They scam on you and steal your money. Why do you think there is no page about Skyway in Wikipedia in Russian? (rhetorical question) 46.53.176.181 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First, may I direct you to the guideline WP:BOLD. You do have the right to add the content to the article as you see fit. Also, if you add it, expect that someone will eventually come to the article to add how and why the accident happened, instead of assuming that one collision during a test run with purposely limited functionality and track height (needed for rapid testing workflow purposes) means millions of dollars were lost. If anything, it was an unscheduled crash test and the vehicle did not derail, unlike many recent Amtrak derailments in America in the past two months. Obviously commercial tracks would be elevated higher to avoid collisions with large vehicles on the ground. Do tell me what a collision between a several-ton backhoe and a conventional train would look like! I will also respond to your "rhetorical" question if you don't mind. The lack of a wiki article for SkyWay on the Russian version of Wikipedia is probably good as it would be unbalanced if it existed. There is a lot of FUD out there in Russian language sources. You can also ask yourself, "Why does an article on string transport exist in English but not in Russian?" Simple, there is hardly any FUD out there in English language sources, if at all, and any reports that may come out this late will be based on the more thorough and complete information backed by the physical existence of actual SkyWay vehicles instead of just "nope can't be done". "And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you." - Nicholas Kleintalk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 12:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if your point has merit, do you think there is a reason why String Transport shows up only in two other languages, one being Hungarian and the other Norwegian? Does it mean anything to you that the Hungarian article is very positive, Norwegian one is very negative, and the English one is more balanced and in the middle? Or do you only care that the Russian one does not exist?talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 13:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Если бы я владел английским в такой степени, чтобы грамотно внести исправления, я бы так и сделал. Поэтому для анализа данных и требуется адекватный (умный) англоговорящий пользователь. Таких здесь нет. В Венгрии тоже. В Норвегии есть. И в Германии есть. Goodl luck in promoting this scam. Oh, I'm sorry. Not scam. 46.53.176.181 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of sources regarding safety concerns in April 2018
It seems that back in April 2018, there was a misinterpretation of a source which criticised the feasibility of the project. This is the edit in question. The news article used as a reference is



The original statement was In July 2017 the Economic Times reported that the project ran into controversy when doubts were raised over the credential of Belarus-based Skyway Technologies along with concerns over the suitability of the means of transport for the region. The congress government was criticised for "the decision to sign a memorandum of understanding with a company with no operational projects anywhere in the world" and doubts were raised over the safety and viability of the project.

This was changed to In July 2017 the congress government was criticised by political opponents for "the decision to sign a memorandum of understanding with a company with no operational projects anywhere in the world" and doubts were raised over the safety and viability of the project. The critics were raised during election campaign and were not followed by any proofs

I find this a bad faith change. "The critics were raised during election campaign and were not followed by any proofs" seems to be a person interpretation. This is not supported by a source. It is also clear that the project was not only criticised by "political opponents" but also by people within the Congress government itself.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree,this seems to part of a pattern of removal of critical content and addition of promotional copy. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Scam
WARNING: 'String Transport' and 'Skyway Capital' which references this articles is a dangerous scam/pyramid scheme. This article should have been removed long ago and the user who wrote it banned from using the service. Belgians have lost thousands of euros investing in what they thought was a valid scheme by 'friends' who in turn were encouraged to find investors. They lost their money because they had faith that Wikipedia would provide them with reliable information. Here's a reference to the warning to Belgians by the FSMA: https://www.fsma.be/en/warnings/first-skyway-invest-group-limited-skyway-capital. ---zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone using Wikipedia for investment advice deserves to lose all their money. A financial adviser might be of more use to them. SpinningSpark 13:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite normal in the U.S. insurance industry to pay commissions based on expected premium payments. Commission-based compensation is very common in marketing and sales arms of many companies besides those in the insurance industry as it incentivizes growth of the company sales funnel. Paying higher commission rates based on number of levels, size of network, etc. does not automatically imply company insolvency as long as the commission rates are balanced and circumspect. There has to be real value, and a sales funnel without a marketable product other than "the sales funnel itself" is totally useless. I'm looking at you Empower Network.
 * Yet, as with many legitimate companies, the primary object for sale in Sky Way is not "commission-generating activities". The objective with Sky Way is to develop and deploy transportation services, which when carried out should have whatever values they are given by the market. Such transportation services are assets which can generate ongoing income for Sky Way customers (i.e. governments, universities, mining companies, and others who will be collecting revenues and/or valuable materials from operating routes), and part of that income ultimately goes back to the investors in the form of dividends. At least that is in their business plan.
 * The investments are rather illiquid, which is because the money is being invested in rather expensive processes including engineering and construction, which are in fact very real. Not everybody is used to this, and some people will understandably regret locking up too much money in illiquid assets. However, unlike for the payment of public shares in the open, investments into Sky Way actually go to the company, and they use this money to do things. The customers of Sky Way (i.e. governments, universities, mining companies, and others who will be collecting revenues and/or valuable materials from operating routes) will be paying Sky Way for engineering to be done and construction to occur, and that is how Sky Way intends to be profitable without having to wait until all the tickets are sold.
 * Ultimately Sky Way investors would be paid money that comes from taxpayers, university tuition payers, mining companies, etc. who are paying for engineering and construction of routes, and in the long term from ridership fees from operating track.
 * And yes of course, there is risk and people might lose. Hello innovation.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You advocate this company so much that I start suspecting that you are an investor. Currently it is quite obvious that Skyway displays many signs of Ponzi scheme. They don't have any profits yet but at the same time they have recently declared that they are ready to pay $5 million dollars to their early investors. Where do you think they get these money from? Of course they would get it from the new investors. And "a Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud which lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors by using funds obtained from more recent investors." Dron007 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only a minority of old investors are getting paid. Most investors are not getting paid. What all investors in SkyWay get is the rights to co-ownership. This is not the same as getting paid.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "...old investors are getting paid" Even if it's a relatively small amount, where is that money coming from? –dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It comes from a pool of funds which can have many sources. At the earliest stages of any startup, the great majority of funds is from investors and creditors. A successful company ultimately must find other sources of money other than financing.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So do you agree that it behaves absolutely similar to Ponzi Scheme at the moment? Dron007 (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What you have here is not a Ponzi Scheme, but an innovative technology venture with incentives for investment that have a hierarchical nature based on who attracts more investments and clients to the company. A person who does nothing but invests money in Sky Way to receive the right to equity shares will not at this point get paid as much cash, and in many cases not at all. The only exception to this is a very small number of earlier investors who can sell some of their shares through a share repurchase agreement. This subgroup of investors contributed to Sky Way by investing years back when Sky Way did not have any certifications for rolling stock, among other things. Their investments paved the way in making the progress thus far in those areas, and so a reward is offered for those who chose to invest so early on. The reward is justified in so far as the progress in certifying rolling stock on a novel track structure, in addition to other activities of the company, is valuable enough to merit such reward.
 * In Sky Way, the newest passive investors get the right to shares but no cash return because the value of their investment has not yet been realized. When the company reaches the level of success where it has secured downpayments on billion-dollar contracts, then it is possible to justify that the value of these newer investments has been realized, and only then it is possible to distribute the profits therefrom to a majority (and ultimately all) of the investors via dividend payments.
 * In contrast, in a Ponzi Scheme a person who is being paid returns does not provide any already-realized value other than money for the Ponzi fraud company and expects a promise from the Ponzi fraud company, which is ultimately being paid by others like themselves but who come later (newer "investors"), who, just like them, provide money but absolutely nothing else in the way of already-realized value. Even the newer "investors" in a Ponzi fraud are hooked by the payments received, though these payments are not based on the reality of any product valued by non-investors. Because a Ponzi fraud offers nothing of real value to back up its returns to investors, it relies on yet more investors to pay its returns, and it ultimately collapses.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From the horse's mouth: "The opportunity to sell shares for money is provided to the very first 5,000 investors who have joined the SkyWay project starting from 2013. The Group of Companies expresses gratitude to these people who supported the technology at the very beginning of its development, when there was neither EcoTechnoPark, nor design offices, nor production facilities, nor transport complexes. At that time, they were provided with a discount reaching up to 1:3500. Now they can obtain the revenue from their investments that increases the capital invested in the technology by up to 35 times."
 * Since the par value for Sky Way shares is $1 USD per share, a person selling his or her shares at a discount of 1:100 would be selling each share back to the company for 1 cent per share. The number of shares in Sky Way has been limited to 400,867,433,000. So if one of the very early investors decides to sell his or her shares, and if Sky Way were someday to be valued $4.01 billion or more in market capitalization, then that early investor would have forgone additional profit.
 * Also from the horse's mouth: The first 5,000 investors will additionally have the opportunity to sell 100,000 shares for money.
 * This is where the $5 million figure (which you brought up) comes from. It is limited to the sale of up to 500,000,000 shares (about 0.125% of equity ownership in the company) for 1 cent per share, or $5 million.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty Ponzi-like to me. Do you have a connection to this investment scheme? Because it sure sounds like it. --SpinningSpark 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * siNkarma86, you write so much but I don't understand how "shares" are related to it at all. They don't worth a penny. Have you seen that certificate of ownership? It is signed by the President of SkyWay Companies Groups. Is there such company? In court process Yunitsky said he is just a constructor. There is no any official document that guarantees for such-called "investors" that they own any technology. Yunitsiky owns the patents, not his company. Moreover, they have created complicated structure of companies to overcome laws prohibiting investing in some countries and any investor wouldn't be able to prove anything. So forget about shares. All that we see is that 5000 investors will be payed with $5 million. There is no any product yet. There were many talks about contracts and billions of investments in Australia, India, Indonesia. Any work was stopped in these countries (it needs to add sources about Indonesia, Australia page 5). So they pay dividends to those people who have long since invested in the company taking money from the new investors. That's Ponzi. Dron007 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * siNkarma86, I see that you promote SkyWay in Youtube, Twitter so you probably are one of "investors". Please don't use Wikipedia for your business trying to present black as white. Dron007 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not participate or benefit in any way from affiliate plans in connection with the Sky Way technology. I purposely chose not to do so due to the complexity that such involves. The same goes with any company, individual, group, or technology I have an advocacy in and/or have defended online (in or out of Wikipedia), including SkyTran, Brilliant Light Power, Broad Sustainable Building, and Moller International/Freedom Motors. In my entire 32 years of my life thusfar I have not received a single cent from any of them, and I certainly do not believe that taking a long time to accomplish something or relying on unconventional approaches demerits an idea or belief. I also do not care one wit about what something looks or sounds like. I only care about what something is, which of course requires more work to determine. Whether such work appeals to oneself or not is purely up to the individual. I decided long ago that such work is worth it for me, for I believe it is possible to build an understanding of what the near future brings by keeping an eye on these sort of companies. I believe that focusing on what something looks or sounds like impairs one's ability to make these judgments. Elon Musk himself called out against "reasoning by analogy" in favor of "reasoning from first principles".
 * You could say that over the past 16 years I have spent many hundreds if not thousands of hours of reviewing these ideas. What I have learned in those years is that the merits of an idea are not directly proportional to how positively or negatively portrayed the idea is in the media. Also, I know very well that individuals or groups are not to be trusted in of themselves, and it is possible to evaluate claims separately from the individual.
 * That being said, since I am of US citizenship, I am not allowed to purchase the rights to shares of Sky Way through Global Transport Investments Inc. (i.e. the investment arm of Sky Way) nor through Sky Way Capital (which was a.k.a. "First SkyWay Invest Group Limited") which has a contract in connection with GTI. These groups do not allow citizens of the USA to purchase share rights in Sky Way. There is SkyWay Invest Group however which does, and to my knowledge, they are marketing financial education packages with the rights to Sky Way shares ostensibly as a bonus. The recent changes to their website now put greater emphasis on the former.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 00:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about personal investigations, it is about facts from authoritative sources so why not to add links to Australian newspaper informing about closing Skyway project there? There are also many warnings from governments of European countries against Skyway. Contrary to me it would be easily for you as you are a native English speaker. But you prefer writing huge comments trying to prove that Skyway in not a Ponzi and that it has good perspectives. Dron007 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be easier for me to add that information as a native English speaker. However, at the early stages of a company, we can expect many false starts. Furthermore, Sky Way has the incentive to not showoff all the deals that have been successful, due to competition reasons. There is plenty of evidence of delegations from many countries visting Eco Techno Park. It only takes a small percentage of that to lead to meaningful projects, even if a majority were to be false starts. That being said, when Sky Way is given the green light by their potential customers in the UAE to disclose significantly more details about their construction progress in the UAE, then it will be possible to find more independent, reliable sources which more accurately reflect the current status of the company.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Attack page
I have deleted the request for deletion.

While the string stransport is mainly a theoretical design, having not yet being implemented on industrial phase, I think it is an original concept which deserves an article. Clearly, main references are only available on the web site of the designers, but the amount of details shows that some engineering work have been done and that this is a bit more that a draft on a napkin.

I have added a short technical paragraph explaining the basic idea and added links to an english site and an independant article.

PRZ (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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 though it cannot be used in the article (primary source, self-promoted resource).Dron007 (talk) 22:22, 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.
 * That is not the "original document" from MSUoRE (MIIT). It was authored by SkyWay's predecessor, String Transport Unitsky "STU" and is a response to MIIT's evaluation of the technology of the same acronym STU (note the lack of quotes). OCR Translation from https://translate.yandex.com/translate gives the title of the document at http://www.yunitskiy.com/author/2007/2007_45.pdf as "Materials in the so-called expertise of STU performed by the MIIT, and examination of these materials, done by "STU" (July 2006 — January 2007). In other words, the title essentially means, "This document refers to materials produced by MIIT regarding STU (Unitsky String Transport), and we "STU" (String Transport Unitsky) have provided our examination of those materials also in this document." The opinion of the document is more or less clear from the machine translation. For example in section 2 we can see the following:

(Yandex machine translated of 2007_45.pdf via OCR) "Of course, working documentation for this project is a developer who is willing to provide it upon request of the investor or expert. But such queries till date not received, so expertise in the MIIT has deliberately been a virtual technical solutions that have no relation to STU and Khabarovsk. The purpose of this "expertise" to us is obvious: when ordering experts were programmed for a negative result, that in any case in Khabarovsk project STU not went investment.
 * It is clear that the document you cite as being the "original document" is actually a critical response by STU (now SkyWay). Therein STU (now SkyWay) says MIIT did not request working documentation of the String Transport technology. If true, it means that MIIT evaluated not the String Transport technology, but rather what they assumed it to be. Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read full document you will see that the original report starts from page 71. The document includes it along with Yunitskiy's criticisms and other documents. Please check the result after you break somebody's comment into parts. It is impossible to understand who was the author after such changes.Dron007 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2007 precedes 2008. The document provided is dated from 2007. Page 71 is the beginning of section 10 in the PDF and is a scan of a comb-bounded document from 2006. Where is the original document for the "2008 assessment"?talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yandex Translate only goes to the 25th page, in PDF so I had to open the PDF directly, viewing Section 10 without the helpful translation. Nevertheless, I notice that a lot of editorial markings of ✓ and ? are written in by hand in Section 10, presumably by a member of SkyWay reviewing MIIT's report for accuracies/inaccuracies. It's not clear how this reference you cite should make clear that "There was no lie about assessment of Skyway technology by specialists of MSUoRE in 2008."talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, the assessment was done in 2016, not in 2008 and Yunitskiy's critical report which includes photocopy of the original assessment (with his marks) is dated 2007. What are you trying to disprove? The fact that there was negative assessment done by MSUoRE (in 2006, not 2008 but that doesn't matter in current discussion) is approved by Yunitskiy in many speeches and in his report discussed above. Dron007 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

3. But Italian article is probably wrong about 2018. The article it references 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * “Describing a story as understood it”, Lithuanian “scandal” term, “translations”, etc. are pure WP:OR and WP:SYN. Your Lithuania case related link from 2014 currently cited here can be considered as reliable, but it is already out of date as well as the others Lithuania related critical refers and digging in a view of the fact that no fraud action has been found during 3 years investigation conducted by procecutor’s office – the authority whose direct competence such investigations are, that is confirmed by multiple mainstream news publications. --George Marshal (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 "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 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: Dron007 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:. 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)
 * &, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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" . 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * 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".
 * 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").
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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".
 * 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)
 * Thanks.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Just for clarity: IMHO='in my humble opinion'? Any advice you can give would be more than appreciated. You've helped give an idea in your post below how we can remove this 'check for bias' warning and these issues will be addressed. I don't think your opinion here is humble and we are certainly not ignoring it. I'll mention this again here. There are three really good secondary references (to the regulatory agency warnings). They are already mentioned above or in the article. The 'financial magnates' reference refers to the FMA/FSMA warnings. The EconomyNews247 reference describes the ads and the Greek warning. The Lithuanian articles refer to the Lithuania warning. Do we have to use these to completely replace the primary sources or can we use the primary sources once they are referenced in a secondary source? In any case, I add a further request for other editors to find secondary references to these primary sources and include them in either the heading above, or the more recent discussion below on the reduction of the regulatory warnings discussion.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , In My Humble Opinion (IMHO). Yes, my opinion is humble because of consensus which is how Wikipedia works. There is no content ruler who is in charge to decide what content goes and what content stays. Its just my opinion, and one of many that can be decided for consensus. If you are asking me to come up with suggested wording I will be glad to do so. I haven't opined on any content at this point other than trying to keep everyone headed in the right direction as far as NPOV and original research. If you would like me to I will do so but please clarify what you are looking for. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And is it going in the right direction? I hope so. The fact-checking of the resources you did must've been painstaking in that you had to read the whole (sometimes foreign language) articles to check if they were sourced correctly. It certainly made me go back and double-check some of the source material only to discover there were other problems(hence more recent changes). What you already suggested was really useful to ensure this article isn't nominated for deletion again. Keep up the good work. Your advice on the wording (and the reliability of the references) in 'marketing' would be particularly appreciated. It is based on the Norwegian article 'SkyWay Capital' sub-heading but this section is recently created and needs triple-checking.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

26 March 2019 (UTC)

Another remark: is it necessary to use this sentence in the "Marketing" section: "At the moment, however, all SkyWay has are "the prototypes running in Belarusian fields"? It is already mentioned there that "...according to Siol.net, [the technology] "is far from commercialization". So I propose to exclude the sentence. Also the sentence "The SkyWay Group has exhibited this technology at trade fairs ..." can be marked as a separate paragraph. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO you can't put the exhibitions into a separate paragraph until you have a source which suggests that this is a business practice or a tool of marketing. When you have found such a reference which refers to this aspect we could conceivably separate this into a new discussion. At present it is used to demonstrate how static models of the technology are used for company promotion. IMHO however you can contest this sentence and we can remove it entirely if you think it is misleading (by synthesizing an argument). "...is far from commercialization" is also different content to "all they have are the prototypes running in Belarusian fields". We could conceivably combine the two sentences. Remember this sentence was created from the original reference to remove the more ambiguous "no project has ever been realized".-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These two citations: "...is far from commercialization" and "...the prototypes running in Belarusian fields" are from the same source . I think it is enough to use one citation from one source. The meaning of the first quote is clear - the technology is not commercialized yet, but the fact that there are "prototypes running in Belarusian fields" the reader can find in the "Testing" section. Also, the fact that no projects have been realized outside Belarus is mentioned in the "Overview". So I propose to exclude "At the moment, however, all SkyWay has are "the prototypes running in Belarusian fields" from the "Marketing" section. But it would be interesting to hear what other users think about it. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I also propose replacing the last sentence in the “Marketing” section “The Financial Services and Markets Authority in Belgium warns that these companies “exhibit characteristics of a pyramid scheme" whereas the Financial Markets Authority in New Zealand warns that they "could be involved in a scam" with "The company's marketing activities have attracted the attention of financial regulators in a number of countries". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:15
 * This is a good idea but unfortunately the words "has attracted the attention of financial regulators" has been questioned and removed from the overview for synthesizing an argument. No actual reference actually states this in so many words. Primary and secondary references do state that the marketing techniques used by the SkyWay Group "have the characteristics of a pyramid scheme" and "could be involved in a scam". Perhaps so much information doesn't needed to be included but I fear we can't use your solution yet.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to reduce the wording to include your suggestion but remain true to the verifiable references. Let me know what you think when you have the chance.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that text for the "Testing" section sounds slightly negatively but I also think we need to know the opinion of other users on these questions before reducing the text in the "Marketing" section as I suggested and adding to the "Testing" section (your suggestion). Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Possible suggestion. A new paragraph could be created in the marketing section which begins "The SkyWay Group promotes itself by presenting its technology at trade fairs like..." This seems to me an unproblematic claim and if necessary we can always expand on this aspect of their marketing when we have more verifiable references on this subject.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * "There are almost no criticism, a lot of self sources"
 * But this is not a reason to turn it to pure blatant Hoax and WP:G10 that is strong argument for WP:SD
 * "system uses controversial MLM"
 * is nor a reason to enforce a “fraud”, “ponzi” and other blaming labels --George Marshal (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted yesterday, unverified user George Marshal is argumenting against a concern made about the page in October 2016 (with no actual references to backup these claims). This user is completely uninformed about recent discussions and appears to be posting from the top of the page without checking the dates or the content being questioned. Please stop posting unverified and inappropriate claims which are irrelevant to far more recent discussions. The actual 'SkyWay Group' article also includes no single accusations of SkyWay being a 'Ponzi sceheme' or a 'fraud'. This is a talk page where accusations like this are checked for verifiability anyway. Please don't copy WP:policy if you can't tell the difference between the talk page and the actual article and you can't read essential information like dates of posting. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User George Marshal is argumenting just against the current WP:SYNTH and hoax version of the contribution as well as against its WP:ADVOCACY by proponents of SkyWay project defamation, authoritatively operating by “accusations”, “do’s” and “don’t’s”--George Marshal (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2019 (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)
 * However the last version is criticism only, linking just to warnings without any neutral descriptive analysis. Investment raising is really using MLM component but as an optional additional income way for impatient investors. Rapid development of the technology shows this fundraising trick be effective.
 * Herewith the company actively grapples with any promises like huge income, “becoming billionaire” claims etc. that are side-effect of over zealous referral program participants.
 * Almost 100 % negative warning based article needs to be deleted or added by real neutrality and subjectiveness. PVO777 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVO777 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's true that MLM is used as an 'optional addition', it still doesn't explain, elucidate or excuse why they use this practice at all. Impatient investors? And you don't provide us with any actual documentation supporting this claim anyway. Please backup such claims with verifiable references and sign your conbributions to this talk page. Otherwise it is difficult to justify including them. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC]
 * For clarity: the user PVO77 is claiming that MLM practices being used to fund SkyWay projects is caused by "overzealous referral program participants" as an "optional addition for impatient investors".
 * Very sorry, but it looks like trolling deterioration rather than clarifying. User PVO77 meant that “(unrealistic promises, high company capitalization etc.)” groundlessly estimated as “some attributes of frauding “ were just overzealous referral program participants tricks that are strictly suppressed by company : https://skywayinvestgroup.com/en/news/imidzh-investorov-imidzh-skyway (sorry, such rules could be founded in self-published source only) PVO777 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVO777 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that claims from unverifiable self-promoting sources cannot be considered. It has been documented in the past that Yunitskiy has attempted to distance himself from these practices. Yet documented references attest to a dedicated staff of network marketers employed at the company located in Belarus who post misleading information. See this verified link for detailed information about this aspect of company marketing: . Self-published claims to the contrary by a self-promoting site are meaningless. Dishonest marketing practices are adopted by a dedicated staff of network marketers employed to disseminate misinformation. They are more than "overzealous referral program participants" but are staff members of the company. Verified counter-claims, however, would be welcome. But please stop posting this information if you can't verify it with reliable sources. It would help as well if you these contributions were signed. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2019 (U
 * ""See this verified link for detailed information about this aspect of company marketing: . ""
 * Bringing to wordpress this WP:RS/SPS cannot be open and even less be considered as a verifiable link. Unfortunately your criticism based on “warnings” includes no any fact based proof. --George Marshal (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Marshal (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any user is welcome to post new valid published references which question the content of the article; such contributions are helpful and welcome. Questioning valid references, however, without stating what it is you disagree with in the article and how you can support your objections with new verifiable references, is unhelpful.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay & Investment
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)
 * Please note the name of this heading was changed to better reflect it's content. It was called 'deletion' but no actual deletion request was made and the discussion turned to matters involved with SkyWay and investment opportunities (and questions about the verifiability of claims SkyWay makes about the value of these shares). -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again accusation without any justifications or links to reliable sources that the group of hyperactive opponents of SkyWay so insistently requires its supporters. Obviously there was about some older version of the article before its turning to the current project demonization. Following WP:G10 the article as currently drafted should be submitted for speedy deletion. PVO777 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The unidentified user PVO77 is posting inconsequential flowery accusations without any verifiable references as a reaction to discussions which are no longer extant. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Redactions were done by User:Zaxander
 * Please summarise these lengthy quotations of policy from the SkyWay promotional site and provide a link to the SkyWay website between square brackets but make clear that this is SkyWay policy you are summarizing; also explain better why so much material was used to argument a request for deletion. Better still, move it to a new heading below that better addresses these issues. There is no doubt a good reason to discuss what SkyWay disclaims any liability for risky investments. But it has to be properly addressed to a discussion that could influence the contents of the article. Help make this content useful.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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 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/


 * Extended quotations of self-published SkyWay policy collapsed to facilitate the actual discussion. Zachar (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been optimistic about similar project (SkyTran) but of course time takes time. What is possible may be allowed to happen. Buyer beware is a fact of the market in general, even in the cases where the company is not the fault.
 * 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 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)
 * This more recent site on the business potential of SkyWay is viewable here: This is an old discussion, but it should be mentioned here that this technical information about the claims that the company makes about the value of its shares are meaningless. I'm surprised no one has removed this blatant and lengthy reference to SkyWay policy. The SkyWay company has not attempted to officially register itself anywhere and it is therefore not permitted to sell shares to anyone. They have over-inflated the value of their company to 400 billion. They promises they make to 'investors' are entirely fanciful. You cannot prove that this is not true because of what they say about themselves. Check the more recent investment warning for a more balanced and recent discussion of the 'investment opportunity' of SkyWay. Whether or not its a 'pyramid scheme' or a 'Ponzi scheme' is irrelevant. But we do have verifiable references that discuss in great deal how they use MLM techniques to attract investors. And it is entirely illegal for them to sell shares anywhere. The only value you have is the value that they apply to the shares themselves which means they are worthless; they are not legally obliged to give you anything if they go bankrupt. See the 'Onliner.by' articles for detailed discussion of this, in particular the Borrenblog translation of the article "The SkyWay Project: the Fantasyland..." from 3 January 2018: . A summary is included in the discussion below. If you want to present justifications of SkyWay investment please don't use SkyWay promotional material to do this.

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)
 * Unfortunately it’s evident that the edit war had been started by 2 SkyWay haters Dron007 and Zachar Laskewicz who, for some reason, actively and insistently continue to defame the project by repeatedly referring to the same blogs that seems to be a SEO or/and troll job. However if you look closer into things you’ll see that "The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on." 111 --George Marshal (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Marshal (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which blogs do you mean? There are no blogs used in the article as verifiable references; only published reliable sources. The link you included is to an unverified opinion about SkyWay. If there are blogs or opinions used in the article then you should list them as they should be checked and replaced with verifiable references.–Zachar (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note this third-party analysis of the actual potential value of the shares of SkyWay Group companies. You can view it here:. It is based on real research and is certainly more valuable than the SkyWay self-published opinions and the unreferenced opinion here of banned sock puppets like Eva Grun: These are really great promises, but unreal. They will never enter the stock market, and if they do, they will undoubtedly fail to fulfill their obligations. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Skyway is not currently listed on any public exchange, so you simply buy only fictitious (if you want – virtual) shares. To put it more accurately, you will get a sheet of paper called a certificate in which the company confirms that you are booking and they reserve for you some stocks... According to SkyWay’s official videos, if you invest $ 4,000 (you will receive a million of “stocks” for the amount invested), you will earn a million US dollars because once the company enters the stock market, you will be able to sell one share for $ 1 (million shares = million USD)... If SkyWay ever enters the stock market, which I doubt, the value of one share will indeed not be 1 USD. The exchange rate determines demand and supply. Easily could happen that if they enter the stock market and people want to sell their shares and earn extra money, no one will be interested in them. At that moment their real value will be shown. What is more interesting, however, and what attracts people in that amount is that SkyWay guarantees the redemption of your certificates for $ 1. So if they enter the stock market and it shows that the real value of their shares is big fat zero, SkyWay guarantees to buy them from you.
 * SkyWay is not currently listed on any publish exchange because IPO didn’t take  place yet. There are no “papers” or “stocks” to “buy” as you’re trying to state above. Nor any promises about future prices of shares. Otherwise please provide any official reliable verifiable source confirming your claims different from self SEO promoting blogs. Also please ask to provide such sources the bloggers whose “coverages” you’re referering here to. SkyWay is using convertible loan 112 113  for investment raising. It’s too soon to speak about stocks in their full sense as the project is being on its development stages 114

Fortunately critics of project can present nothing grounded except their empty “unreality” claims and old outdated “warnings”. --George Marshal (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these references. The first link is advertising that makes elaborate and misleading claims. An enthusiastic investor's report includes statements like "I would not forgive myself if I would miss it as the ROI can easily be more than 10 000% So at the beginning of September 2017 I added SkyWay to my portfolio." It ends with a list of fabricated lies about the company's achievements, such as the places pre-orders have been made. The equity net link doesn't even contain investment advice, just flowery claims about SkyWay like "Efficient and environmentally friendly SkyWay - Transport of new generation that meets the standards of the 21st century and able to take up to 50% of the world market of transport, to improve the quality of life and make our world a better place." It doesn't provide any scientific support for these exaggerated claims let alone sound economic advice about investment products. The third link  may sound like a reputable discussion of financial terms. But unfortunately its contents has nothing to do with the products SkyWay investmen is offering to the public. This is not informed information that can be seen as anything but advertising, propaganda and misdirection. User Kmarinas86 is right in that you have to show caution before investing money. Inform yourself before you invest: this company is offering to sell you products that it has not applied permission anywhere to sell to you. It absolves itself in its own paperwork from any liability and guarantees as you can read in the disclaimers above. It sells worthless pieces of paper that mean little more than what they tell you themselves about them. Convertible loans? Pre-IPO shares? In terms of SkyWay Investment terms like this are meaningless buzz words used to tempt inexperienced investors who don't know any better that are entirely inapplicable to what SkyWay is allowed to sell to you: nothing. Good luck with any investments you make but I advise you personally to not choose anything SkyWay is offering as you will lose your money. Zachar (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Zaxander, who and/or what authorized you to groundlessly blame as well SkyWay project as third party sources and opinions on it by self-emotionally negatively colored epithets like “misleading”, “fabricated lies”, “flowery claims”, “propaganda and misdirection”, “worthless pieces of paper”, “meaningless buzz words” and others? Do you have any proof of your words? Or definitive promise like “you will lose your money” is given by you in what capacity? As prophetic? Or are you having reputable sources links to? And again: nothing is being sold by company at the moment, the convertible loan using for investment of the technology being on stage of its creation is officially stated and used by crowdfunding foundations of the Group. --George Marshal (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is the author of that "third-party analysis"? Here is the citation from that page: "Hi, my name is George and I currently work from the comfort of my home. I work for PR agency as the seller of ad. Besides that, I do on-line marketing for eshop, but I also make this website. I like to search for legal opportunities to make money online, and then I publish them at this website. It is my hobby..." He is not even a financial analyst or an employee of an investment company. I don't think that this "third-party analysis" is a reliable source, so we cannot use this text in the article. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, this George H. - the author of the "third-party review" - did not even indicate his surname, so this article is anonymous and cannot be considered as a reliable source. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking this. Yes I agree we cannot use this material in the article - but this wasn't actually the intention, but to provide a balance to the SkyWay promotional material. It would be great if you could provide a better resource on the topic of SkyWay investment because it's obviously important to this article. But new references have to be better supported than the reams of direct postings from the SkyWay website which is still posted above. It would, however, be great to have more articles by economists on how the SkyWay Group works. Please post links here concerning the investment opportunity or even better create a new topic below specifically addressing this topic. But please don't include paragraphs directly copied from the SkyWay website. You can even create a summary of the SkyWay content with a link to the SkyWay site if you think it's significant. But hundreds of words copied from a promotional website is misleading. If you contextualize it and provide a link, no problem. But paragraphs of SkyWay promotion is hardly necessary here.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * An extended discussion on SkyWay investment opportunities in German: and . –Zachar (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

–Zachar (talk) 20:32, 10 July 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:. 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:. 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 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 is also an entirely unrelated university in Malawi. See it here:
 * 'Awana SkyWay' is a gondola lift system connecting Awana Transport Hub, Chin Swee Temple and SkyAvenue in Genting Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia since December 2016. It has nothing to do with the Belarusian SkyWay company. It has been reported in various places on the internet that motivated sales meetings have been held by SkyWay in Malaysia (to sell cryptocurrencies) so it's important to make this distinction. The monorail system is owned by 'Resort World Genting' and has nothing to do with the controversial Belarusian SkyWay investment group. -Zachar (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential Sources of Technical Information

 * This post concerns a monograph by Anatoly Yunitskiy written in 1995 and self-published again in 2017. Its title translates to STRING TRANSPORT SYSTEMS: on earth and in space. Here's a PDF of the second section: You can also read what a SkyWay promotional site has to say about an upcoming English translation here: . Zachar (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The following list of articles cite a seminal work by Yunitskiy on his technology. They were found via the Google Search Engine.
 * The following is a complete search request . This search request excludes results from yunitskiy.com: . This search request further specifies citation-only sources:


 * Струнные транспортные системы: на Земле и в космосе (1995)

Google Translation of these results:

Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 07:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

PDF pages of the first math-heavy chapter of "Струнные транспортные системы: на Земле и в космосе" now translated into English can be found at http://yunitskiy.com/news/2019/news20190414_en.htm

Summary below:

Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 07:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do we need all these Google results here? Dron007 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can make a point about Yunitskiy's work without including such detailed information about everyone who has cited it. A title with a link between brackets is sufficient. I included links to the original publication and an English translation of the title so that people know what you are talking about. But if you think a work is worthy of further analysis you can just included a reference to the original work, and then say that it has been cited in sources [x], [y] and [z]. Zachar (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The search results were filtered so we can avoid use of primary sources. The sources can change with time, so it helps to know how to get them in the first place. Hence, I posted several stages of links narrowing the filtering progressively as a way of instruction. Also, most of the search results were not in English, and to display English translations should help the English-fluent Wikipedia community to find an impetus for digging deeper to find meaningful content for the article.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Zachar (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay and the United Nations
The SkyWay Group have made various claims about the United Nations. They claim to have received grants from the United Nations, which some references have suggested were later withdrawn. No one knows what happened to the money, and I can find no actual proof they received any. The United Nations websites don't actually return any results for 'SkyWay' projects or the name Yunitskiy. Presently, they still use the logo of the UN-Habitat organization which they claim to be current shareholders of the SkyWay company. The intention here is collect actual verifiable references that attest to the involvement of the United Nations in SkyWay projects.
 * On the European Urban Knowledge Network website Eukn.eu, we can find a UNCHS (Habitat) document mentioning string transport:

An international project to improve communication infrastructure using the String Transport System is being considered by the Russian Federation. The String Transport System (STS), invented by Anatoly Yunitsky of the research centre UNITRAN, is a rope−and−beam construction using electromobiles with a carrying capacity of up to 10 passengers and 5000 kgs. It receives electric power through the wheels which are in contact with the current−carrying heads of special rails.

The STS' optimal velocity ranges from between 300 and 400 km/hour. Traffic control is computerised, thereby reducing human error, which makes this a safe form of transport. In the long run, it is also a cheaper form of transport. The cost of a seven−hour trip to Paris from Moscow, for example, would only cost US$ 32 per passenger, much less than the cost of an air ticket.

The proposed STS is also more efficient in terms of technical and economic indices than the high−speed railways of France, Germany and Japan. STS, suspended on piers 10 to 50 metres high, can easily avoid embankments, bridges, etc. and therefore reduces construction costs by up to five times. Most importantly, STS is environmentally more sustainable because:


 * It does not use non−renewable energy sources such as oil, coal, gas, non−ore materials and ferrous and non−ferrous metals, as its structure and supports have a low degree of material consumption.
 * It uses electricity, which is one of the cleanest and cheapest sources of energy. In addition, ecologically−clean sources of energy, including wind and sun, will be used for the operation of STS roads.
 * Fertile soils will not be affected very much, as the construction of a string road does not require tunnels or cleared−up spaces.
 * In terms of exhausts, the STS is expected to produce less than 0.1 grams per passenger−kilometre, compared to 10 grams per passenger−kilometre for cars, 0.6 grams per passenger−kilometre for high−speed railways and 300−400 grams per passenger−kilometre for airplanes.

The main “problem” with introdcing this system is that it requires heavy investment in the initial stages: To be implemented, STS would require at least one billion US dollars over a five−year period. But these initial start−up costs have to be weighed against the economic and ecological benefits of this means of transport.

'''The above article is based on a submission by V.K. Storchevus, Head of the UNCHS (Habitat) Moscow Bureau. Some of the information was extracted from an article by Vladimir Sosnitsky entitled “The Road to the 21st Century”, published in Eureka, No.3 1998.

'''For more information, please contact:

'''V. Storchevus, UNCHS Executive Bureau

'''8 Stroitelei Street, Building 2

'''Moscow 117987 GSP−1, Russian Federation

Fax: (7−095) 930 0379; Tel: (7−095) 930 6264


 * I found this official document through the Google search for "daniel biau" "string transport" (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22daniel+biau%22+%22string+transport%22) which was prompted as soon as I saw Daniel's name at the document.
 * Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this! But how does this prove that the UN have invested money in a SkyWay company, which is the claim being contested in the geldthemen.de article? I think they gave SkyWay a grant (which they later revoked). Read about it here: . But in this article they discuss the Russian federation possibly investing in a String transport project sometime in the future. It doesn't mention either the grant or the investment the UN supposedly made. -Zachar (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the UN-Habitat (UNSHC) website does not mention SkyWay or Yunitskiy. This is worrying because if they did give SkyWay a grant, why don't they want to advertise this fact today. Yet SkyWay use the UN-Habitat logo as you demonstrated above on their website as one of their investors. –Zachar (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay Marketing - Cryptocurrencies
SkyWay appears to be offering cryptocurrencies which it will sell as some type of investment opportunity.

They have also offered 'Education Investment Products' which are still present on their investment portfolios and websites.
 * At a motivated sales meeting on 12 May 2018 in Wellington New Zealand, the SkyWay Invest Group had the following to say:
 * "Skyway Invest Group offer a wide range of financial education products that allow you to earn while you learn and even give you a leg up into the world of Investing and finance."

According to BehindMLM, a recent SkyWay motivated sales meeting in Malaysia explained this funding of 'CryptoUnit' returns as being based on: "real estate in Russia, Skyway Capital shares, cryptocurrency, land, shares (in Visa, Mastercard, Twitter, Facebook, Fedex and 'SperBank'), energy, 'cash' and a gold mine in Ghana." Here SkyWay presents itself as some type of 'Global Investment Consortium':.

The following reference entitled "Suspect Skyway Capital Investment Fraud in the Making as New CryptoUnits, Tokens Introduced" can be viewed here:. This sources suggests that "The platform recently announced its move toward Skyway tokens and CryptoUnits, and some surmise that it has to do with the company’s low cash flow."

SkyWay may be using plausible deniability to on one the hand distance itself from this practice on one website like this where it says that "In the network appeared the so-called crypto currency 'SWcoin'. It does not have anything to do with SkyWay technology. We strongly recommend you to ignore it and similar projects." On the other to embrace it by saying that it "will be worth more than BitCoin" on another SkyWay website: or here:  where a "cryptoconference" event is celebrated "dedicated to the market of cryptocurrency, mining and ICO [initial coin offering]." SkyWay use this argument here:.

When there are enough verifiable references mentioning this topic it should be included in the 'Marketing' section.-Zachar (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is an event in Hamilton, New Zealand, where the SkyWay Invest Group promoted their CryptoUnits: . This what they have to say about the event: "Join us for an information session about our new Crypto Unit. A security token backed by real assets, and generating monthly dividends." –Zachar (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 30 March 2019 in Perth (Western Australia) a big event was held in The Rise in Maylands by the SkyWay Invest Group Asia-Pacific. They announced the following about this event "SWIG CryptoUnit... No More Confusion! ANDREW HAWKES will present the full explanation and confirm the exact details presented by Andrey Khovratov and Mila Serdjukova last week."


 * This is a request for verifiable references on this aspect of the company's marketing and financing. Zachar (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (U
 * Possible update to 'marketing' heading based on new information concerning 'cryptocurrencies'. Please help improve the text with your edits or suggestions below:
 * Early in 2019 the SkyWay Group started marketing cryptocurrencies in the form of SkyWay Tokens and CryptoUnits. They claim that this new investment product is based on the value of real assets and that it will generate monthly dividends.. Claims they make about the value and the earning potential of these cryptocurrencies, however, have been disputed..
 * -Zachar (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note the similar wording of the 'educational packages' offered by the company OneCoin which has since been stopped from the illegal and fraudulent sale of investment products: "According to OneCoin, its main business is selling educational material for trading. Members are able to buy educational packages ranging from 100 euros to 118,000 euros.[10] Each package includes "tokens" which can be assigned to "mine" OneCoins."

New project announcement in UAE
"We approved a package of Developmental projects to continue building Dubai as the world's best city. The SkyWay project,  a 15 km Urban transit system,  will transport passengers along Dubais skyscrapers thorough 12 stations..." - @hhshkmohd talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sky Way has referenced this announcement here.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted by George Marshall: " His Highness was briefed about the Skypods project, a suspended transit system that links vital spots such as the Dubai Financial Centre and the Downtown with the Business Bay. Passing through the Happiness Street and runs up to City Walk, through tracks extending 15 km in length. The project, which has 21 stations and the capacity to transit 8,400 riders per hour per direction, offers an urban transit experience that features modern-designed pods passing through Dubai’s towers...." 201--George Marshal (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Realisation of such a project would probably be dependent on the successful testing at the Sharjah test site? I look forward to reading here news on any important changes to the Sharjah test site or real contracts signed as noted by third-party sources that are verifiable.Zachar (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not news area. To be aware on the project development and implementation I’d recommend to follow the official news of company. As for this place, it would be reasonably if this troll-like WP:G10 article was deleted or ultimately reedited. --George Marshal (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to mention it in the article. We have Twitter message in the oficial page of Dubai's sheik and wide coverage in media. Message says: "We approved a package of developmental projects to continue building Dubai as the world's best city. The SkyWay project, a 15-Kilometer urban transit system, will transport passengers along Dubai's skyscrapers through 21 stations." Dubai Media Office (part of Dubais' government ) says: "Skypods, a suspended transit system that links vital spots such as the @DIFC and @MyDowntownDubai. The project, which has 21 stations and the capacity to transit 8,400 riders per hour per direction." and adds 3D rendered video. Other sources:   Dron007 (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do we need to mention in the article? Instagram postings are not verifiable references. What Sheik Mohammed thinks or agrees to is irrelevant, even if his opinions are shared widely. SkyWay is using this new success as a reason for justifying more questionable investment from its 'small investors' around the world. If he signs a legally-binding contract to build something somewhere, or they actually build something at the Sharjah test-site, that will be important and worthy of mention. But Sheik Mohammed's opinions and agreements are meaningless if they don't actually result in a real contract (as opposed to an MoU which doesn't legally oblige anyone to do anything).Zachar (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * “SkyWay is using this new success as a reason for justifying more questionable investment from its 'small investors' around the world.” I really don’t understand why SkyWay company has not yet brought you to a trial for such a damaging “conclusions”. And what role of a “magistrate” or a “prosecutor” are you taking insisting on some “justifying” obligation of an enough successfully and rapidly developing and growing innovative technology venture start up? Enough reputable sources announced its building, whilst such legal documents as contacts etc. are unlikely to be available to public as they can contain as well commercial and/or technology secrets as confidential information of all parties of contract.--George Marshal (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what SkyWay say on their own web page about the funding of their UAE projects: "However, as with other innovative transport systems, SkyWay Technologies Co. must first convince investors to finance the project." You can view this shameless self-promotion here: . If they have the real investment of the UAE why on earth would they need additional money from small investors? SkyWay have been documented self-promoting itself with entirely fictional promotion around the world. They have brought unsuccessful litigation against journalists who commented upon such shameless and fictional self-promotion on the web and via telephone marketing campaigns in places like Minsk, the Crimea and Samara to threaten them into silence. But suggesting that legal action be brought against discussions on a Wikipedia talk page is inappropriate and ridiculous.–Zachar (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since when crowdinvesting of a venture technology became a “shameless and fictional self-promotion”? Thee are many successful examples that brought various significant life improving technologies to the world: Today not only business but even non-profit, public, medical, religion, charity… you can ay everything use self published description texts advertisement etc. to promote themselves and it’s normal. There is no reason to blame them “shameless”, “fictional” “scam” and so on. If usual promotions give you panic attacks I’d strongly recommend you to see a doctor. Furthermore there is no phrase you mention on the page you’re referring there to.  Rather, it seems to represent an English translation of French transport related reputable coverage article  telling about SkyWay with UAE contacts for building both cargo and passenger lines.--George Marshal (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Crowdfunding is not illegal. Selling 'Educational Investment Packages' to help customers "learn as they earn" when they're actually selling them gift certificates for non-existent shares was banned by the Italian regulatory agency Consob in February 2018. Please note I haven't called it either a scam or a Ponzi scheme. The Belgian regulatory agency FSMA says it has the characteristics of a pyramid scheme, however, and the FMA of New Zealand says it could be a scam. I invite you to read the translation of the Italian article where they do call SkyWay a Ponzi scheme and explain in detail why. If you disagree please explain with valid references we can check. The link you provided is a press release for the Sharjah test site in the UAE for work which will take place in 2019 (but which has not taken place yet). It doesn't say anything we don't already know about a proposed project being negotiated. –Zachar (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The project exists, the transport models exist and are demonstrated in movement and taking passengers in EcoTechnoPark that has been built and exists as well. Design engineering bureau exist, development and improving work exists 27, intellectual property exists too. All this evidently proves that the project exists. All this has been created for small investments in parts of this big project registered as a kind of pre-ipo shares. Thus your “non-existent shares” claim is invalidated arithmetically: you’re trying to divide a value (which the project already is) by zero that is undefined nonsense Division_by_zero--George Marshal (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The SkyWay Group has not been allocated the necessary permission to sell its shares anywhere. The company claims that the intellectual property owned by "Global Transport Investment Inc." - a company registered in the British Virgin Islands (a tax-haven) - is worth more than four billion dollars. Many verified references included in the article question these claims. It doesn't matter if the project itself exists because the investment products they sell are entirely unregulated and can only be worth as much as SkyWay tells you. Pre-IPO shares cannot be sold on the open market. In no single verifiable reference has it been proven that anyone has made any money they didn't receive as the result of attracting other investors to attend SkyWay sales meetings. The link you included contains a set of the same self-published and unverified MLM promotion copied from SkyWay websites. Khovratov, director of SWIG and business manager who has a history in pyramid marketing and who travels the world promoting SkyWay investment, has been connected to legal action documented against journalists critical of SkyWay projects. Zachar (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, SkyWay Group is not selling shares. I see no Share purchase contract proposed at the moment. “Procedure for Raising Funds from Investors: (i)Private investors will  invest  in  the  Project  by concluding  a convertible note agreement  with  GTI secured by  the shares options of class "A» ERSS HOLDING, signed with UniSky.”… Agreement This is not a self-promotion, but official Convertible note agreement the company concludes with every investor. This procedure requires no special permission. Otherwise the company would be in conflict with law.  And if you look more attentively this is SkyWay website who cites texts from third party sources. This is usual practice of promotion to use positive reviews of your project by other publications.--George Marshal (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * SkyWay is not selling shares because it is not a PLC and is not permitted to sell them anywhere on the open-market. It does, however, sell various other investment products to an unsuspecting market of small-investors, and the marketing heading in the article describes these investment products. Initially it sold promissory notes or gift certificates for shares that would exist once the company "goes public" and can legally sell its shares. Then it sold 'education investment packages' which Italy banned because unsuspecting customers received ... gift certificates for shares. Now they are selling 'cruptocurrencies' which Yunitskiy announced as far back as August 2018 at the EcoFest and they've been marketing on the internet. These cryptocurrencies will provide 'monthly returns'. These claims about their investment products cannot be true but this shouldn't surprise anyone as the SkyWay Group has a history of selling investment products that have are worth no more than the paper they are printed on: nothing.–Zachar (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The official sources you’re mentioning above are based on hollow “characteristics of” and “could be” as always without any substantive facts. Meanwhile looking forward crowdfunding-based project opinion takes place too 0608. As for Italian article it represents just a blog-like essay about subjective unbelieves in this transport technology. However there are many “pros” articles that consider SkyWay as transport of future 377. --George Marshal (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Observe this reference (0608) for typical unrealistic MLM claims including promises like "SkyWay will buy your shares back after they go public", "investment is only possible for a short-time so invest now!" and that "prepayment of large-scale investors are already in place". Please include references that show actual independent research and not regurgitation of unverified claims SkyWay makes about its investment products or its technology. –Zachar (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Business Insider Italia article contains research on the company's history, negotiations in Italy and legislation passed by Consob. This article in Russian you posted (377) is pure speculation based on representations of the future present in sci-fi writing by Philip K. Dick, the film Metropolis ... and the string transport of Yunitskiy. Please publish only references which contain real information, research and not futuristic speculation or unverified opinions. –Zachar (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you state this being unrealistic? What exactly do you mean by “actual independent research”? Do you suppose any technology startuper will give all the technical details to another’s digging and making them available to public? In such case the investors will lose their funds for sure because none project will be implemented as it was designed by its author. And what “real information” are you insisting on while there are only links to blatantly trolling blogs and warnings from few organizations based on incorrect understanding of the topic from your own part. Please, look at Lithuanian prosecutors who, being well known Russophobes kept digging during 3 years and finally publicly recognized the absence of any fraud. --George Marshal (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Research means information that is not self-published or speculation - any actual references that are not published by Yunitskiy and his company will be read and evaluated. If you question facts in this article please help us improve it by providing resources that are not copied from SkyWay promotion sites. The Lithuanian government did not exonerate Yunitskiy and the reason for the long investigation? Yunitskiy had fled Lithuania and has never returned, and the Bank of Lithuania rereleased its warning about the company. It is true, however, that the Siauliai project was cancelled because of concerns about security; but the Bank of Lithuania investigation had nothing to do with this: they investigated his company because of the illegal sale of shares to Lithuanians via the internet. These are not claims that are made on 'trolling blogs' but actually happened as verified by the many verifiable sources. Do you disagree? Then provide us with actual references from verifiable sources. –Zachar (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sheik is the governor of the emirate. If he personally announces his (same as Emirate's) plans about Skyway I think it worth mentioning. For media source I don't see any differ between the Tweet/Instagram message and site articles. It is just a media of expressing their position. Sheik announced approving this project and some details which are relevant to this article. We don't have any original documents both in MoU and this case and in any way we cannot reference primary sources. Here we have good second sources. So I think we need to add information that sheik approved SkyWay project in Dubai and that it is planned to be 15 km in length and have 21 stations. Dron007 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sheik Mohammed personally announcing something is very different to actually signing a legally binding contract with a company. The project he proposes is no different to what they were saying when they signed the original MoU in February. When a non-primary source documents the signing of an ACTUAL contract, it could mean something. They still haven't built anything at the the Sharjah site, so nebulous discussions about projects which have neither been officially planned or safety tested for actual viability is hardly significant. Good secondary sources? To what exactly? The fact that Sheik Mohammed approves funding of an untested project? I don't think so; at least not in the references you posted (I checked them). They are basically just the reposting of a tweet.Zachar (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have details about planned road from very reliable source and good secondary sources like Khaleej Times - oldest newspaper of Dubai. This information is directly related to the discussed subject and could be interesting for any reader of this article. We don't make our own assessments and judgements of the technology, whether it was tested or not, we just provide related material from reliable sources. So I don't see any reason not to include this information. Dron007 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sharjah site is a separated project which is not related to RTA MoU and sheik of Dubai. We don't have enough materials to write something about it at the moment. So I don't understand how situation in Sharjah influences the project in Dubai. We don't know is sheik approved funding, he just approved the project. That is what should be mentioned I think. Dron007 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's interesting! But why are they building the Sharjah test-site? For another project somewhere else? Here's a possible addition to the article based on your suggestion:
 * ...In April 2019 the Vice President of the UAE approved a suspended transit system that would link vital spots in Dubai. Zachar (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why any Sharjah test-site building relation to RTA MoU or its absence is needed to disprove this blatant defamation? Why SkyWay cannot develop multiple projects simultaneously aiming to use crowd investments as efficiently as possible? Anyway I agree with “don’t know’s’ of User Dron007 To understand such kind of details we need more reliable as well as official infos. However the approved project of transport line building in UAE is enough to completely refute all the “scam”, “pyramid” like and other similar blames.--George Marshal (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The approval of Sheik Mohammed does not refute any of the valid accusations of the extremely questionable way SkyWay finances its infrastructure projects with the money of small investors. The shameless reposting of the tweets of the RTA on the SkyWay website, in fact, prove the very opposite.Zachar (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * None pertinent accusation exists at all except your claims and paid-like scandal sheets defamations. Be questionable is not a ground for accusations. It’s “shameless” because there is nothing to be ashamed of. The group of companies are raising finances from small investors, transparently develops the technology, designs transport models that are already working and showing the capacity to carry passengers, builds test and demonstration polygons and is going to implement the new generation transport in such developed city as Dubai, so there is no any objective reason to accuse in some “cheat” or smth else nor to post really shameless WP:SYN WP:NHOAX on Wikipedia.--George Marshal (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion on the contents of the article. There are no actual accusations in the article itself. If there is something you disagree with in the article you should tell us why with new references to verifiable sources. There are many verifiable resources which question the extremely irregular use of small investors entirely unqualified to judge this technology which has never received external accredited testing or evaluation. If you think this is wrong you have to provide valid resources we can check and not arguments with unsupported Wikipedia policy accusations.–Zachar (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Khaleej Times reference is the best of the three because it is does not appear to be a retweet of what the Sheik Mohammed tweeted a couple of days ago (only we know that it is). We could also add other information about the length of the proposed track and the number of stops if you think it's important. Zachar (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Zachar (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found the same information directly in the sheik's official site: just to make sure all numbers are not misrepresented by media sources. Yes, I think it is important to add details (at least the length and number of stations) as it is the main project of the company now. Surely we'll update this information according to the news. Maybe it will deserve a separate section. Dron007 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Zachar (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the following recent discussion other people have already reacted to the Sheik Mohammed's tweets: They sound like the direct reprinting of SkyWay promotion. Furthermore, it is suggested that RTA should be contacted to explain "how they can manage throughput of 8,400 passengers in one direction in gondolas for 4-6 people" which would actually require more than two cars speeding by every couple of seconds. Sound ludicrous? In each of the RTA posts and its verbatim dissemination all over the UAE, this extremely questionable fact has been listed alongside the 21 stations and 15 km track length (facts which have actually already entered the article).–Zachar (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe that Sheik Mohammed would directly reprint a “suspicious” company’s promotion?  Don’t you want to tell some absurd like “Sheik is engaged in a scam to earn some money”?? This is ridiculous. However seeing the “reactions” you’re referring there to that will be not surprise. If you came to such a conclusion I’d strongly advise you to avoid publishing it on the web. --George Marshal (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one suggested that that the Sheikh Mohammed would be engaged in a scam to earn some money. How could we possibly know what his intentions are? It was just mentioned that the Sheikh Mohammed tweet lacked any actual plan or contract and that it sounded like it was copied directly from SkyWay promotion. Zachar (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But where have you ever seen such documents been openly published on the web? Multiple reputable UAE news agencies mentioned above and not, have been published the release about the approval of the project by Sheikh that should not be without learning the case in details.--George Marshal (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your link brings to another mudslinging without any grounds that, being so fast and so negatively emotional reaction to SkyWay events looks like a kind of indirect confirmation of real company success. So quick publishing of such “deep digs” as well as their immediate bringing accompanied by flowerily sarcastic phrases to Wikipedia should be significantly paid, isn’t it? As for substantive question of passengers per hour number the most probably this is about a possible maximum total of 21 stations. Furthermore where do you have “4-6 people” information from? However if you make simplest addition calculation for 21 stations per 60 minutes even for 4-6 people you can get superior number.--George Marshal (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that approval from Sheikh Mohammed is not "a kind of indirect confirmation of real company success". They still haven't built anything in Sharjah, approved any funding, signed a contract or in fact made a real proposal that can be referenced as a primary source. It doesn't mean anything until they've signed an actual contract, created legislation or actually built something somewhere. So they got the Sheikh to say something nice about SkyWay. How does this prove anything? -Zachar (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note however that the current changes are under the 'negotiation' heading. If they actually build something at the SkyWay Innovation Center in Sharjah and this can be reliably verified then it can be included in the 'testing' heading. If they actually start the project in Dubai - which sounds suspiciously similar to the completely unrealistic Sevastopol project which has computer-generated skyscrapers connected by cable rails - it would become the first real 'project' and be deserving of an individual heading (or an entirely new article). Considering how dangerous it would be to connect skyscrapers on cable cars that have not been safety tested anywhere, this seems highly unlikely. And Dubai has little to no regulation which means this is "just another level of pageantry." But the more publicity they gain from the RTA tweets, the more small investors they'll get to part with their money and invest in shares (or CryptoUnits or whatever they are currently calling their dubious investment product). -Zachar (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of these recent postings questioning the actual validity of the RTA claims, I reworded the text to reflect what actually happened: the RTA tweeted SkyWay promotion about a dubious project which included unrealistic and unverified claims about SkyWay, and this tweet was shared verbatim all over the United Arab Emirates by verified news senders. If you really think that facts like the length of the proposed track and the number of stops needs to be mentioned (or the totally incredible number of passengers whizzing by in Sky Pods every second), observe the previous wording and make the necessary adjustments to the text. This should be easy for anyone to do. -Zachar (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should've changed the wording. It was correct. The important fact is that the ruler of Dubai approved the proposed project not that RTA posted some information. And I don't understand why somebody's opinion in comment in a blog may affect wordings in this article. Why not just use sources? Unrealistic or not it is not a typo, it was posted on official sites so let's just provide it as is in the article adding corrections later if required. And yes, I think the length and number of stations is important information for anyone who is interested in this topic. Why should we suppress it? Even if it appear to be wrong it will still remain an important fact to Skyway. Comparing to many other proposals and 3d renders like in Sebastopol and probably any big city of Russia and Ukraine the situation is absolutely different as only here the project is approved by the ruler of the state (emirate). Dron007 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read the text above and still think this text should be included, then make the changes yourself based on what was there in the first place. I just don't want it to have anything to do with me. It seems to me clear what it is going on here. I don't think you need to mention this until they actually produce plans and legally binding contracts to build something. You could mention the Sharjah test-site when they actually build something there. You could even discuss actual negotatiations if they resulted in the signing of a legally binding contract with SkyWay if you wanted to (and I would support it). But if you want to give emphasis to an 'approval' for a nebulous project that sounds like SkyWay promotion and which contains unverified, unscientific nonsense, then go ahead and do it yourself. Other editors can read this discussion and have links to the sites which have formed our opinions. And just to be clear it's not someone's opinion in a blog that I used: it's the scientific ridiculousness of 8400 passengers per hour on a 15km track which renders all the facts completely unverified promotion that is repeated word for word in all the 'reliable sources' based on a tweet. You can pick and choose these facts from the SkyWay promotion if you want to. But you have to do it yourself (you can use the text I used or post something here you are are happier with and I'll correct it if you want).–Zachar (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But Byelorussian EcoTechnoPark once was desert site too. Then by and by several test lines and working models already transporting passengers were built 33 34 as well as they announce to finish one more cargo track soon  1875 Furthermore the article itself has no reference to any scientific disproval for a simple reason that none exists;. There are only few financial organization “warnings” about non existing stocks sale. Whilst the “scientifically ridiculous” technology is already working. So why to not to dilute the HOAX by real facts covered by world recognized media MSN  1098459718 ? --George Marshal (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * YouTube films and SkyWay promotion websites are obviously unusable. Latvia has been added today to the growing list of countries who have issued warnings about the SkyWay Group. –Zachar (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a text you could post : "...that would have a length of 15 kilometres, consist of 21 stations and link vital locations in Dubai". –Zachar (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The wordings of the first part are almost the same. It was "the Vice President of the UAE approved..." and became "the RTA posted information about royal approval for a SkyWay...". But let's see the sources. Sheik posted it in Twitter, there is information in official site. Yes, RTA also published it but the essense is that "sheik approved" so RTA is irrelevant in this case. Moreover there is nothing about RTA in the source we provide so anyway it should be changed. What do you think?Dron007 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the numbers there is a difference between length/number of stations and capacity of transit. Length and number of stations are physical parameters related to the track. Capacity of transit depends on many other factors: speed, number and capacity of vehicles, delays, structure of the station (parallel routes). That's why I don't insist that we should mention it. But it is not correct to say that it is impossible to reach this capacity of transit with the provided route. It is reachable but with much bigger vehicles and Yunitskiy mentioned in some video that in UAE he was asked to use Skybuses with capasity of upto 300 passengers. It conflicts with the previous RTA announcements though so it needs clarification.Dron007 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're doing a great job uncovering this information and keeping the page informed about developments. I suggest you make these changes to the page. I fully support you making these changes if you think they are necessary but I'd avoid posting the information about the 8400 people if possible! Remember that the Sheik's tweets are not a primary resource like legislation, political documentation or copies of contracts. They are just copies of something he tweeted that sounds like it comes directly from SkyWay promotion. If the news site were sourcing an actual primary source, like legislation, contracts or court-case transcripts, this would be different. But they're not. Sheik Mohammed's word is not legislation and something positive he says about a SkyWay project should be taken at face value: he said he approved of something and he shared this information. This is not actual approval of funding or the signing of a real contract. I still don't think it really needs to be mentioned at all, but I fully support you doing it. –Zachar (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The RTA reference has been removed. Hopefully this works better now. If you want to mention the stations and the proposed length of the track, you can safely introduce these changes. Zachar (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now it reflects what was in the original source. I have restored numbers. Please check. Dron007 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ATTACKING THE TRAM - a recent Italian article on SkyWay self-financing and CONSOB warning
An article critical of the Italian negotiations and the entire SkyWay business empire has recently been released. It was written by Andrea Sparaciari and it was published on 1 May 2019 in Business Insider Italia. A summary of its contents is included below. More details on the Italian negotiations with individual references are included above in the SkyWay in Foreign Countries heading. The article itself includes however insights into how the company works and why the Italian regulatory agency CONSOB banned the sale of its shares and advertisements of its investment products. The original is viewable here:

SUMMARY: -Zachar (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Belarusian SkyWay company makes lofty claims about its infrastructure technology which it promotes to politicians and transport ministers around the world.
 * Italy expressed strong interest in SkyWay’s proposals. Negotiations were held in Brianza, Messina and San Marino (where an MoU was signed) but they were later cancelled or postponed.
 * MoUs were also signed in the Indian State Himachal Pradesh (later canceled after protests from the central government), and more recently with the RTA of Dubai (UAE).
 * People who sign up don’t seem interested in the fact that SkyWay posts false information about projects they started in Turkey, New Zealand or Lithuania.
 * Potential customers probably trust the captivating 3D simulations widely advertised on the web or the EcoTechnoPark, more amusement park than testing facility.
 * Anatoly Yunitskiy founded and directs the complex SkyWay empire consisting of companies based in tax havens.
 * The MSUoRE released a report in 2008 pointing out the potential danger associated with SkyWay. According to the Economic Times in India this helps explain why so many companies in the SkyWay Group ended up dissolving.
 * All the doors closed to Yunitskiy after this, so he decided to “save the planet” by self-financing the projects. This is when the problematic side of financing started.
 * The SkyWay Group has headquarters in the British Virgin Islands, which in turn controls “SkyWay Capital” based in Saint-Lucia. This subsidiary controls global self-financing through crowdfunding.
 * They entice investors to become an owner of the largest transport company in the world (which has not yet built anything) and promise returns of more than 1,000% on your investment.
 * The SkyWay Invest Group, also based in Saint-Lucia, offers financial training packages thanks to which investors are promised 22% daily return of investment: “An investment expert will teach you how to save and multiply your capital”. They claim that since September 2011 at least 100,000 people from 35 countries have completed their investment training courses.  The main principle they teach is multi-level marketing: the more new customers you bring, the higher you will rise in the company. This is a classic Ponzi scheme and warnings have been issued about this by the regulatory agencies Lithuania, Estonia and Belgium.
 * CONSOB, the Italian regulatory agency, banned the sale of these ‘financial courses’ on 7 February 2018, because in reality the victim bought shares of the company, but without knowing it and without a shred of information.
 * When you see any references to positive articles about SkyWay you claim them “reprinted self promotion” pointing at “reliability absence” whilst your presented article full of criticism based just on criticism and of unverified “values” taken from nowhere. Otherwise let them confirm every digit “cited” in by verifiable official sources. Until then all your “summary” clauses are another troll like hoax--George Marshal (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not really true. All of the references you include are checked for verifiability and content. Two of the references you have recently mentioned, namely the article in Vietnamese viewable here and the published article on MLM activities in Nigeria viewable here  actually resulted in changes to the article and are now included in the list of referenced works. The Vietnamese article was translated and you can read the complete translation of this article under the heading SkyWay in Foreign Countries: Vietnam above. The article you include have to be more than just unsupported praise copied from a SkyWay website or from anything Yunitskiy wrote himself. If you disagree with any of the facts in the summary, you can react to them here but useful criticism has verifiable articles to back up your argument. -Zachar (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Zachar (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Before changing the article, check the original or the Google translation below:

https://it.businessinsider.com/attaccati-al-tram-dal-pirellone-a-catania-gli-italiani-che-hanno-abboccato-alla-fantomatica-monorotaia-da-500-kmh-di-skyway/?ref=fbpr&fbclid=IwAR28QYbl6klU0rkQ99lgjoPB95sXAOsHHZZSJPshF6l-DRaTadBzj_0-h2c

Attaccàti al tram… Dal Pirellone a Messina, gli italiani che hanno abboccato alla fantomatica monorotaia da 500 kmh di SkyWay

Attack on the tram ... From the Pirellone to Messina, the Italians who took the SkyWay's elusive 500 kmh monorail

By Andrea Sparaciari (1 May 2019)

[SkyWay image] TEXT: screenshot of a rendering generated by SkyWay. YouTube

Cities bursting with traffic? No problem, the SkyWay company has the solution: to buy one of its monorails that make speeding cars at 15 meters high at 500 kilometers an hour, with a frequency of one every 15 seconds. Moreover, the plants cost 20% less than a normal subway and are totally green ... It seems like a dream, but it is the "real" proposal that the Belarusian company has been promoting for years now to heads of state, transport ministers and local administrations of half the world. Too bad that such facilities do not actually exist on the planet Earth.

Nevertheless, many believe SkyWay's proposals, only in Italy did they express strong interest - if not signed real memorandum of understanding - a pool of industrialists from Brianza led by the regional councilor Andrea Monti (who invited SkyWay managers to the Pirellone to present a feasibility project for a cable car between Cologno Monzese and Vimercate); the Secretary of State of the Republic of San Marino, Michelotti (who last March met in Belarus the General designer of the company Anatoly Yunitskiy with whom he signed a document of understanding for the construction of the San Marino-Rimini connection); the mayor of Messina, Cateno de Luca, who during the election campaign had passed off "The Flying Tram" as the panacea for the mobility problems of the Sicilian city.

[image of a group of men] TEXT: Messina Mayor Cateno De Luca with representatives of SkyWay for the presentation of the "flying tram" project (later abandoned). StrettoWeb

Look also

And the "local" interested parties are in good company, given that memoranda of understanding with SkyWay have also been signed by the government of the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh (later canceled for the protests of the central state) and, recently, by the Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) of Dubai.

The subscribers are not at all worried by the fact that SkyWay has not yet built a single one of the flying monorail promises. Nor does it advertise (non-existent) projects already started in Turkey, New Zealand and Lithuania.

Probably the potential customers trust the promise, widely advertised on the web with 3D rendering and captivating simulations, that the first prototype will be inaugurated shortly in the "SkyWay-EcoTechnoPark by Maryina Gorka, near Minsk, a sort of Gardaland of mobility of the large future 36 hectares. It matters little if the construction of the first unit is sold for almost four years.

But who commands in the complex SkyWay empire, a galaxy formed by companies based in tax havens, that invade the web with advertising and that you never understand what they sell, whether mobility facilities or packages of actions?

At the head of the empire is the founder of "Skyway Technologies" (eye to the names of the companies), Anatoly Yunitskiy, who defines himself: "an engineer, author and general designer of a radically new type of transport systems called Unitskiy String Transport”, destined to revolutionize the world.

The professors of the State University of Railway Engineering of Moscow did not see it in this way. In a 2008 report on the first prototype of the monorail, they defined the project "feasible and insecure" and string technology plagued by "a large number of system flaws and almost unrealistic ", as well as" associated with a serious risk to passengers ". Not surprisingly, therefore, as reported by the Indian financial newspaper The Economic Times, “Companies such as the Euroasian Rail Skyway System, the American Rail Skyway System, the African Rail Skyway System, the Australian and Oceanic Rail Skyway System recorded in various parts of the world have dissolved "into nothing within a few years.” But if the engineering side raises more than a doubt, a real concern raises the financial side of the SkyWay universe. Yunitskiy, in fact, after the doors were slammed shut by academics, has taken the role of the misunderstood genius who intends to "save the planet" by self-financing his projects. For this reason, in 2014 it joined the holding company "SkyWay Group of property" (which deals with the construction of the plants through numerous subsidiaries), the second holding company "SkyWay Group of Companies" with headquarters at 19 Waterfront Drive, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands (a tax haven), which, in turn, controls the "SkyWay Capital" based in another tax haven, in Saint Lucia. It is through this latter company that it has launched a global self-financing crowdfunding. "Very soon we will get the first profit, which will be a deserved reward for the efforts of those who have worked to create the technology and confidence in the project of those who have become its investors," assures Yunitskiy on his web page. To entice investors to buy "bricks" of their (always building) monorail, it offers a return of 1,000%: "Purchases of company shares at a discount that is up to 500 times less than their nominal value, and when the company will enter the global market, you will get the capitalization of 1,000% or more ", reads - textually - on the site. And, thanks to the purchase of "shares of the company, you become an owner of a part of the largest transport company in the world" (which has not yet built anything).

But still that's not all: thanks to another company, the "SkyWay Invest Group" always based in Santa Lucia, the Yunitskiy group offers financial training packages thanks to which a ROE is guaranteed, a return on investment, equal to 22% daily! «An investment expert will teach you how to save and multiply your capital, as well as show you how to choose the best tools for your portfolio. While creating the SkyWay Invest Group brand, we aimed to combine two projects: the Academy Private Investment educational investment project and the Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. high-tech project

Since September 2011, at least 100,000 people from over 35 countries and 4 continents have completed our investment training courses, "says their latest site. And to make it clear, they explain that by investing 100 US dollars, they will get 3,000 over a three-year period. The principle, in this case, is the "multi level marketing": more shopping packages, more profits. But, above all, the more neo-buyers you bring, the more level rises and the more you increase your income, thanks to other people's investments. And since the potential levels promoted by SWI are 24, growth (and gains) would be endless. In short, to say it with the words of the warning issued by the New Zealand Financial Markets Control Authority, this is a "suspected fraud". A classic Ponzi scheme. Such notices have also been issued in the last four years by the supervisory institutions of Lithuania, Estonia and Belgium.

Consob also moved on 7 February 2018, prohibiting the sale of SWI, because instead of financial courses, in reality the victim bought shares of the company, but without knowing it and without a shred of information. Consob writes:

“NOTED that (...) evidence has been acquired about the fact that the company RSW Investment Group Ltd., operating under the trade name of SkyWay Invest Group and having its registered office in the British Virgin Islands, offers users of its website (www. skywayinvestgroup.com) the possibility of registering for "paid investment training courses", receiving "gift certificates" which would give them the right to receive shares of the company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd., on the occasion of future IPO of the latter;

CONSIDERING that the real object of the offer is constituted by the shares and not by the training courses on investments;

NOTING that on the site www.skywayinvestgroup.com SkyWay Invest Group also promotes a network marketing program, defined as "an excellent opportunity to make an additional source of income", which provides for the recognition of commissions ranging between 1% and 15% in favor of those who induce other subjects to join the initiative; (...) Resolution: The advertising activity carried out by Mr. M.T. towards the public residing in Italy through the site https://superblu.wordpress.com concerning the offer to the public resident in Italy of Skyway Capital shares ”. Previously, Consob had also blocked the sites www.lucastefanelli.net, https://superblu.wordpress.com, www.askiiholding.com, the Facebook page "AskiiHolding" and the companies Up4x Ltd (www.4xbanks.com), 4Xbrands Ltd (www.4xbrands.com), 4Xbankers Ltd (www.4xbankers.com). All useless: even today the web is full of so-called "financial operators" who offer the packages / actions. Among them there is everything: "artists of the lie", known for invectives against chemtrails, housewives and exponents of the extreme right, who did not hesitate to threaten the regional councilor Pd, Pietro Bussolati, "guilty" of having unveiled the other face of SkyWay immediately after their presentation in the Lombardy Region. [facebook post] Pietro Bussolati About 2 months ago LYING ARTISTS AND FLYING TRAINS, PART 2 Here are some excerpts from the Consob resolutions prohibiting the sale of shares in Italy of the Belarusian company that the League had called in the transport commission. It would seem to prefigure something similar to a Ponzi scheme, ie a chain system where the pyramid is scaled according to how many people join the network. Lately then the word "trash" is back in fashion, which perfectly describes the video you find at this link https://we.tl/t-C75mu6cS5q. There was also on YouTube, at this link ➡ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTsm-qvR-Ik, but they accidentally deleted it after this post.

–Zachar (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Possible additions to marketing text based on recent sources. Please add your own edits and suggestions to the text below:
 * After the negative assessment in Russia in 2008 official funding for SkyWay projects became more difficult as the academic world lost interest in the project. For this reason Anatoly Yunitskiy started marketing himself as a "misunderstood genius" and self-financing his projects to "save the planet". This led to the creation of offshore SkyWay companies which were responsible for the marketing of various investment products and crowdfunding.[BII2019]
 * To circumvent these regulatory warnings SkyWay Invest Group - registered at an offshore address in the tax-haven Saint Lucia - started marketing 'Educational Investment Packages' (EIPs) to help customers "learn while they earn". CONSOB, the Italian financial regulatory agency, banned the sale and advertisement of these investment products in February 2018 because it turned out customers unwittingly received gift certificates for company shares "without a shred of information".[BII2019]

−Zachar (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Zachar (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed addition to Regulatory warnings because of specificity of what CONSOB did: it was more than just a warning, but involved the actual banning of sale and advertisement of a specific investment product:
 * In February 2018 the Italian financial regulatory agency CONSOB banned the sale and advertisement of SkyWay's investment products.[BII2019]