Talk:SoftBank Vision Fund

You should update the AUMs
2 year old AUMs listed here.

People should be aware of the amazing growth the vision fund has had in the last 2 years 87.224.40.223 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

1 November 2023 Edit Request
Hi, I have a Conflict of Interest and would like to request the following changes on behalf of SoftBank Vision Fund.

The article is in need of a number of changes, not least because of the actions of three users who have been banned as a sockpuppet ring. These users (Libermercatus, NAIDEPKIW NONA and Aarfrunzindin) added some material which breaks Wikipedia’s rules on Neutral Point of View, and looking at the History pages of these accounts, constitute a coordinated attack. As such, among these changes I have nominated some sections of text for removal as they were added in bad faith.

Please can the following changes be made:

1.	Within the Infobox, can the location image caption be changed to Palo Alto, California and the AUM updated to $166 billion.

2.	To clarify to the SoftBank Vision Fund structure, can the first sentence of the lead be changed to read as follows:

The SoftBank Vision Fund is a venture capital fund founded in 2017. It is managed by SoftBank Investment Advisers, a subsidiary of that is part of the SoftBank Group.

3.	Remove the following sentence from the lead, as it was added by NAIDEPIKIW NONA of the sockpuppet group, using a commentary/opinion piece as a citation (currently number 6) rather than a news article: (diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoftBank_Vision_Fund&diff=1138925964&oldid=1133863383)

By 2023, the dismal performance of the fund had cast a shadow over the initial exuberance of both the fund and Masayoshi Son, the founder and largest shareholder of the SoftBank Group.

4.	Can the second paragraph under History be edited down as the investor list is outdated and is incorrect; Vision Fund 2 was launched only with capital from Softbank Group:

In July 2019, SoftBank announced the creation of SoftBank Vision Fund 2. with investors from technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple and Foxconn as well as financial service companies such as Standard Chartered, Mizuho Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and MUFG Bank.[2][3] The National Investment Corporation of National Bank of Kazakhstan was also an investor.[2][3] Saudi Arabia was not an investor in the second fund.[2] The fund was reported to focus on AI-based technology and reach an investment of approximately $108 billion, of which $38 billion would come from Softbank itself.[2]

5.	In the third paragraph of the History section, can the first sentence be amended to read as follows:

In January 2020, in response to a decline in activities brought on by the Covid 19 pandemic, multiple Softbank-funded startups started cutting their staff, such as at Getaround, Oyo, Rappi, Katerra and Zume.[11]

6.	Again in the third paragraph of the History section, the current text makes some correlations and oversimplifications. Can the following changes to be made:

With many portfolio companies of the first fund not performing well and high profile debacles issues such as the buyout of Wework after its failed aborted Initial public offering, investor confidence in the Vision Fund fell.[13][14] In May 2020, Softbank announced the value of the Vision Fund lost portfolio had been marked down by $18 billion. Leading to Around the same time it was reported that 15% of the fund's 500 staff being laid off.[15][16] As a result, the Vision Fund 2 subsequently closed at $60 billion in commitments, funded exclusively raised less than half of its $108 billion goal with all of it being funded by Softbank itself after failure to secure commitments from external investors. [13][17]

7.	In the fourth paragraph of the History section, certain sentences contradict WP:CRYSTALBALL. Can the paragraph be amended as follows:

In May 2021, SoftBank announced the total fair value of both funds as of 31 March 2021 was $154 billion and the Vision Funds made a record profit of $36.99 billion in part successful due to its successful investment in Coupang.[4] After announcing the success, At this time, SoftBank raised the size of Vision Fund 2 to $30 billion and stated it plans to continue self funding the second fund although it might consider trying again to secure funding from external investors.[4][5][18] Also in May 2021, Bloomberg reported that Vision Fund could become public through a $300 million SPAC in 2021, listing in Amsterdam.[19]

8.	The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the History section were added as part of the prolonged sockpuppet attack by NAIDEPIKIW NONA and Aarfrunzindin on a timescale from August 2022 to April 2023. Can these attacks be removed:

In 2022, SoftBank Vision Fund posted a record 3.5 trillion yen loss ($27.4 billion) for its financial year ended on 31 March 2022 as the valuation of its stock portfolio plummeted.[20] The fund's losing investments were massive and both Son, who had claimed he had a special ability to see the future of disruptive entrepreneurship, and SoftBank, received much criticism from shareholders, peers and the business and finance media in general due to the magnitude of the failure.[21] Costly failures like those of Katerra,[22] Wirecard[23] and Zymergen[24] were just a few examples of SoftBank's reckless investing behaviour and the investing holding company's incompetence, neglect and failure to show due diligence.[25][26]

9.	The penultimate and final paragraphs of the History section also contain such attacks from these two editors in the same time period and should be removed:

In August 2022, the Vision fund announced a loss of $23.1 billion for the April–June quarter and that it would be planning to cut headcounts.[29] Eric J. Savitz, associate editor for technology at Barron's, characterized the SoftBank Vision Fund as a failed experiment.[30] Masayoshi Son said at the time he was “embarrassed” and “ashamed” when he was confronted with SoftBank Vision Fund's[31][32] dismal performance and The Wall Street Journal called SoftBank a “big loser"[33] while Bloomberg elaborated on “Masayoshi Son’s broken business model."[34] Son's investing strategy in the first and second SoftBank Vision Funds established in 2017 and 2019, was being described as one reliant on the greater fool theory and the lackluster performance of its investments and Masayoshi Son’s presentations in face of that, have been ridiculed by specialized media.[35][36]

By early 2023, having lost its exuberance[6] due to serious profitability issues[37] and facing declining return on investment prospects[38] as well as record losses,[39] the once world’s biggest investor in startups had invested just $300 million into startups in the last October–December quarter, down more than 90% from the previous year.[40] In May 2023, the SoftBank Group disclosed that its Vision Fund lost a record $32 billion in the fiscal year ending in March 2023.[41]

10.	Can the final paragraph of the Business overview section be removed as it is just repetition of information found in the History section:

The largest investor of the first Vision Fund is the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia contributing $45 billion of the $100 billion fund.[8] Other investors include Softbank, Mubadala as well as technology firms, Foxconn, Qualcomm, Sharp and Apple.[44] The second Vision Fund is solely funded by Softbank itself after failure to secure commitment from external investors due to underwhelming performance of its predecessor.[5][17][18]

Many thanks in advance for helping to fix the damage done by this sock network and to bring the article up to date. Manelila (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply 1-NOV-2023
Regards, Spintendo  02:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The request cannot be reviewed because several portions of the requested text do not include working citations. Instead, it appears as if numbers have been placed within brackets (i.e., [1][2], etc.) This makes the request more difficult to review, because the references which are connected to the text cannot be established with a good level of certainty.
 * To that end, the COI editor is kindly asked to submit a new edit request below this reply post at their earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that all the references are included with the proposed text to be added / deleted.

6 November 2023 Edit Request
Hi, I have a Conflict of Interest and would like to request the following changes on behalf of SoftBank Vision Fund. The article is in need of a number of changes, mostly because of the actions of three users who have been banned as a sockpuppet ring. These users (Libermercatus, NAIDEPIKIW NONA and Aarfrunzindin) added some material which breaks Wikipedia’s rules on Neutral Point of View, and looking at the Contributions of these accounts, constitute a coordinated attack. As such, among these changes I have nominated some sections of text for removal because they were added in bad faith. This version of the request has been updated as per User:Spintendo’s instructions to provide links for the bracketed numbers indicating references already in use in the live article. I have used the citation tool to do this. As noted on Talk:Rajeev Misra, I have used underline to indicate suggested new material and strikethrough to suggest material for deletion, with the exception of point 3. Please can the following changes be made: 1.          Within the Infobox, can the location image caption be changed to Palo Alto, California and the AUM updated to $166 billion. 2.          To clarify to the SoftBank Vision Fund structure, can the first sentence of the lead be changed to read as follows: The SoftBank Vision Fund is a venture capital fund founded in 2017. It is managed by SoftBank Investment Advisers, a subsidiary of that is part of the SoftBank Group. 3.          Remove the following sentence from the lead, as it was added by NAIDEPIKIW NONA of the sockpuppet group, using a commentary/opinion piece as a citation rather than a news article: (diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoftBank_Vision_Fund&diff=1138925964&oldid=1133863383) By 2023, the dismal performance of the fund had cast a shadow over the initial exuberance of both the fund and Masayoshi Son, the founder and largest shareholder of the SoftBank Group. 4.          Can the second paragraph under History be edited down as the investor list is outdated and is incorrect; Vision Fund 2 was launched only with capital from Softbank Group: In July 2019, SoftBank announced the creation of SoftBank Vision Fund 2. with investors from technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple and Foxconn as well as financial service companies such as Standard Chartered, Mizuho Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and MUFG Bank.[2]TechCrunch (Deadlink)[3]Nikkei Asia The National Investment Corporation of National Bank of Kazakhstan was also an investor.[2]TechCrunch [3]Nikkei Asia Saudi Arabia was not an investor in the second fund.[2]TechCrunch The fund was reported to focus on AI-based technology and reach an investment of approximately $108 billion, of which $38 billion would come from Softbank itself.[2]TechCrunch 5.          In the third paragraph of the History section, can the first sentence be amended to read as follows: In January 2020, in response to a decline in activities brought on by the Covid 19 pandemic, multiple Softbank-funded startups started cutting their staff, such as at Getaround, Oyo, Rappi, Katerra and Zume.[11]The New York Times 6.          Again in the third paragraph of the History section, the current text makes some correlations and oversimplifications. Can the following changes to be made: With many portfolio companies of the first fund not performing well and high profile debacles issues such as the buyout of Wework after its failed aborted initial public offering, investor confidence in the Vision Fund fell.[13]Wall Street Journal [14]Wall Street Journal In May 2020, SoftBank announced the value of the Vision Fund lost portfolio had been marked down by $18 billion. Leading to Around the same time it was reported that 15% of the fund's 500 staff being laid off.[15]Reuters [16]Finanical Times As a result, the Vision Fund 2 subsequently closed at $60 billion in commitments, funded exclusively raised less than half of its $108 billion goal with all of it being funded by Softbank itself after failure to secure commitments from external investors. [13]Wall Street Journal [17]Private Equity International 7.          In the fourth paragraph of the History section, certain sentences contradict WP:CRYSTALBALL. Can the paragraph be amended as follows: In May 2021, SoftBank announced the total fair value of both funds as of 31 March 2021 was $154 billion and the Vision Funds made a record profit of $36.99 billion in part successful due to its successful investment in Coupang.[4]CNBC After announcing the success, At this time, SoftBank raised the size of Vision Fund 2 to $30 billion and stated it plans to continue self funding the second fund although it might consider trying again to secure funding from external investors.[4]CNBC [5]Barrons [18]Pitchbook Also in May 2021, Bloomberg reported that Vision Fund could become public through a $300 million SPAC in 2021, listing in Amsterdam.[19]markets.businessinsider.com 8.          The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the History section were added as part of the prolonged sockpuppet attack by NAIDEPIKIW NONA and Aarfrunzindin on a timescale from August 2022 to April 2023. Can these attacks be removed: In 2022, SoftBank Vision Fund posted a record 3.5 trillion yen loss ($27.4 billion) for its financial year ended on 31 March 2022 as the valuation of its stock portfolio plummeted.[20]CNBC The fund's losing investments were massive and both Son, who had claimed he had a special ability to see the future of disruptive entrepreneurship, and SoftBank, received much criticism from shareholders, peers and the business and finance media in general due to the magnitude of the failure.[21]www.valuewalk.com Costly failures like those of Katerra,[22]WSJ Wirecard[23] WSJ and Zymergen[24]Forbes were just a few examples of SoftBank's reckless investing behaviour and the investing holding company's incompetence, neglect and failure to show due diligence.[25]Al Jazeera [26]The Economic Times 9.          The penultimate and final paragraphs of the History section also contain such attacks from these two editors in the same time period and should be removed: In August 2022, the Vision fund announced a loss of $23.1 billion for the April–June quarter and that it would be planning to cut headcounts.[29]Reuters Eric J. Savitz, associate editor for technology at Barron's, characterized the SoftBank Vision Fund as a failed experiment.[30]Barrons Masayoshi Son said at the time he was “embarrassed” and “ashamed” when he was confronted with SoftBank Vision Fund's[31]The Guardian [32]Nikkei Asia dismal performance and The Wall Street Journal called SoftBank a “big loser"[33]Wall Street Journal while Bloomberg elaborated on “Masayoshi Son’s broken business model."[34]Bloomberg.com Son's investing strategy in the first and second SoftBank Vision Funds established in 2017 and 2019, was being described as one reliant on the greater fool theory and the lackluster performance of its investments and Masayoshi Son’s presentations in face of that, have been ridiculed by specialized media.[35]New Statesman [36]Financial Times By early 2023, having lost its exuberance[6]Reuters due to serious profitability issues[37]Forbes and facing declining return on investment prospects[38]Financial Times as well as record losses,[39]Business Insider the once world’s biggest investor in startups had invested just $300 million into startups in the last October–December quarter, down more than 90% from the previous year.[40]Forbes In May 2023, the SoftBank Group disclosed that its Vision Fund lost a record $32 billion in the fiscal year ending in March 2023.[41]Observer 10.        Can the final paragraph of the Business overview section be removed as it is just repetition of information found in the History section: The largest investor of the first Vision Fund is the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia contributing $45 billion of the $100 billion fund.[8]CNN Other investors include Softbank, Mubadala as well as technology firms, Foxconn, Qualcomm, Sharp and Apple.[44]Forbes The second Vision Fund is solely funded by Softbank itself after failure to secure commitment from external investors due to underwhelming performance of its predecessor.[5]Barrons [17]Private Equity International [18]Pitchbook

Many thanks in advance for helping to fix the damage done by this sock network and to bring the article up to date. Manelila (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply 8-NOV-2023
If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page.
 * Your edit request could not be reviewed because of the unusual way the requested prose utilizes numbers in brackets along with ref tags. Normally there is no need to manually place additional numbers in brackets at the end of sentences to signify citations, because the MediaWiki software already accomplishes this by placing numbered ref notes in brackets automatically. The placement of additional numbers in brackets at the end of the COI editor's requested sentences has rendered the request un-reviewable, because it is not known what is meant by these extra numbers.
 * The COI editor is kindly asked to reformat their request so that it does not include these extra numbers in brackets, and to submit that reformatted request in a new edit request below this reply post. Additionally, the COI editor is asked not to use shortened ref names in their request.

Regards, Spintendo  08:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

23 November 2023 Edit Request
Hi, I have a Conflict of Interest and would like to request the following changes on behalf of SoftBank Vision Fund. This is the same request as above, but with the formatting changes requested by @Spintendo. The numbers in square brackets from the previous request referred to citations which were already present in the article. As I am either asking for these to be deleted or they dont require review, I thought it would be helpful to differentiate them. I have removed all of these extra notes as apparently the format was confusing, but please do note that I am not the editor who added these references to the article as it stands. My main concern is removing the actions of three users who have been banned as a sockpuppet ring. These users (Libermercatus, NAIDEPIKIW NONA and Aarfrunzindin) added material which breaks Wikipedia’s rules on Neutral Point of View, and looking at the Contributions of these accounts, constitute a coordinated attack. As noted on Talk:Rajeev Misra, I have used underline to indicate suggested new material and strikethrough to suggest material for deletion. Regular text without either of these was already in the article. Please can the following changes be made:

1.          Within the Infobox, can the location image caption be changed to Palo Alto, California and the AUM updated to $166 billion. 2.          To clarify to the SoftBank Vision Fund structure, can the first sentence of the lead be changed to read as follows: The SoftBank Vision Fund is a venture capital fund founded in 2017. It is managed by SoftBank Investment Advisers, a subsidiary of that is part of the SoftBank Group. 3.          Remove the following sentence from the lead, as it was added by NAIDEPIKIW NONA of the sockpuppet group, using a commentary/opinion piece as a citation rather than a news article: (diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoftBank_Vision_Fund&diff=1138925964&oldid=1133863383) By 2023, the dismal performance of the fund had cast a shadow over the initial exuberance of both the fund and Masayoshi Son, the founder and largest shareholder of the SoftBank Group. 4.          Can the second paragraph under History be edited down as the investor list is outdated and is incorrect; Vision Fund 2 was launched only with capital from Softbank Group: In July 2019, SoftBank announced the creation of SoftBank Vision Fund 2. with investors from technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple and Foxconn as well as financial service companies such as Standard Chartered, Mizuho Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and MUFG Bank. (Deadlink) The National Investment Corporation of National Bank of Kazakhstan was also an investor. Saudi Arabia was not an investor in the second fund. The fund was reported to focus on AI-based technology and reach an investment of approximately $108 billion, of which $38 billion would come from Softbank itself. 5.          In the third paragraph of the History section, can the first sentence be amended to read as follows: In January 2020, in response to a decline in activities brought on by the Covid 19 pandemic, multiple Softbank-funded startups started cutting their staff, such as at Getaround, Oyo, Rappi, Katerra and Zume. 6.          Again in the third paragraph of the History section, the current text makes some correlations and oversimplifications. Can the following changes to be made: With many portfolio companies of the first fund not performing well and high profile debacles issues such as the buyout of Wework after its failed aborted initial public offering, investor confidence in the Vision Fund fell. In May 2020, SoftBank announced the value of the Vision Fund lost portfolio had been marked down by $18 billion. Leading to Around the same time it was reported that 15% of the fund's 500 staff being laid off. As a result, the Vision Fund 2 subsequently closed at $60 billion in commitments, funded exclusively raised less than half of its $108 billion goal with all of it being funded by Softbank itself after failure to secure commitments from external investors. 7.          In the fourth paragraph of the History section, certain sentences contradict WP:CRYSTALBALL. Can the paragraph be amended as follows: In May 2021, SoftBank announced the total fair value of both funds as of 31 March 2021 was $154 billion and the Vision Funds made a record profit of $36.99 billion in part successful due to its successful investment in Coupang. After announcing the success, At this time, SoftBank raised the size of Vision Fund 2 to $30 billion and stated it plans to continue self funding the second fund although it might consider trying again to secure funding from external investors. Also in May 2021, Bloomberg reported that Vision Fund could become public through a $300 million SPAC in 2021, listing in Amsterdam. 8.          The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the History section were added as part of the prolonged sockpuppet attack by NAIDEPIKIW NONA and Aarfrunzindin on a timescale from August 2022 to April 2023. Can these attacks be removed: In 2022, SoftBank Vision Fund posted a record 3.5 trillion yen loss ($27.4 billion) for its financial year ended on 31 March 2022 as the valuation of its stock portfolio plummeted. The fund's losing investments were massive and both Son, who had claimed he had a special ability to see the future of disruptive entrepreneurship, and SoftBank, received much criticism from shareholders, peers and the business and finance media in general due to the magnitude of the failure. Costly failures like those of Katerra, Wirecard and Zymergen were just a few examples of SoftBank's reckless investing behaviour and the investing holding company's incompetence, neglect and failure to show due diligence. 9.          The penultimate and final paragraphs of the History section also contain such attacks from these two editors in the same time period and should be removed: In August 2022, the Vision fund announced a loss of $23.1 billion for the April–June quarter and that it would be planning to cut headcounts. Eric J. Savitz, associate editor for technology at Barron's, characterized the SoftBank Vision Fund as a failed experiment. Masayoshi Son said at the time he was “embarrassed” and “ashamed” when he was confronted with SoftBank Vision Fund's dismal performance and The Wall Street Journal called SoftBank a “big loser" while Bloomberg elaborated on “Masayoshi Son’s broken business model." Son's investing strategy in the first and second SoftBank Vision Funds established in 2017 and 2019, was being described as one reliant on the greater fool theory and the lackluster performance of its investments and Masayoshi Son’s presentations in face of that, have been ridiculed by specialized media. By early 2023, having lost its exuberance due to serious profitability issues and facing declining return on investment prospects as well as record losses, the once world’s biggest investor in startups had invested just $300 million into startups in the last October–December quarter, down more than 90% from the previous year. In May 2023, the SoftBank Group disclosed that its Vision Fund lost a record $32 billion in the fiscal year ending in March 2023. 10.        Can the final paragraph of the Business overview section be removed as it is just repetition of information found in the History section: The largest investor of the first Vision Fund is the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia contributing $45 billion of the $100 billion fund. Other investors include Softbank, Mubadala as well as technology firms, Foxconn, Qualcomm, Sharp and Apple. The second Vision Fund is solely funded by Softbank itself after failure to secure commitment from external investors due to underwhelming performance of its predecessor.

Hopefully this all makes sense now! Manelila (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to have reasons for these changes being made. Specifically, #5 and #6 do not have reasons attached to the request. Also, you state that text from these sockpuppets is to be removed, but you have not provided proof that the text was inserted by these editors. Please provide the for each entry. Any other information regarding why the SP material should be removed should also be provided (e.g., it's incorrect because of blank reason _____). When ready to proceed, kindly change the request template to read from  from y to n. Regards,  Spintendo  23:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Spintendo I was under the impression that material added by confirmed sockpuppets was typically removed from Wikipedia? These additions in particular all violate Neutral point of view in their tone and presentation of sources due to their undisclosed motivation.
 * Here are the reasons for each change above:
 * 1. updating to correct location and most recent figures.
 * 2. to clarify the SoftBank Vision Fund structure
 * 3. Sock addition, violation of NPOV, citation is commentary, not a news article
 * 4. the investor list is outdated and is incorrect; Vision Fund 2 was launched only with capital from Softbank Group
 * 5. The phrasing here notes that staff cuts occurred in 2020, but this was in part due to the pandemic.
 * 6. clarifications and cuts for better understanding and to reduce correlations and oversimplifications
 * 7. certain sentences contradict WP:CRYSTALBALL "it might consider trying again", "could become public"
 * 10. Repetition
 * Please see the diff proofs of sustained sock interference here:
 * Aarfrunzindin
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1150826221
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1151040626
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1151041154
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1154620507
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1155669681
 * NAIDEPIKIW NONA
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1104355976
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1104356121
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1104360150
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1112472120
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1112480262
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1113994476
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1121251522
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1138925964
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1138927047
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1138932999
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1138933440
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1138934336
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1138934672
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1139473189
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1141434942
 * Thanks, Manelila (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply 3-DEC-2023
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.

Regards, Spintendo  23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)