User talk:Dron007

Thanks for your help on the SkyWay Group
Your posts on the subject of the SkyWay Group companies have been well-researched, thorough and interesting. Furthermore, you've been helpful pointing out potential mistakes I've made in things I've written that could be problematic. Thanks for your careful reference of things that are posted to this site and helping me to improve mistakes. I appreciate it. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for the time you've put in to help me with this. It's human to make mistakes, but it's a lot easier to admit you make them and learn from the experience if you know there are people out there who are willing to correct them in an objective fashion and enter discussion on these topics.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you too. Dron007 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * People have started making personal attacks, I've been receiving threatening mails and the accusations have been getting very personal. I came to this subject with the pure interest of removing the pseudo-science like you did. I was a paying donator to Wikipedia and I believed it was a worthwhile endeavour, until I discovered with horror that blatantly false information was being peddled in the name of science. I felt I had to to help because of the knowledge I had of activities in Belgium. I enjoyed having my worked checked with other people democratically to improve the SkyWay articles. Andrew Postelniak, I fear he's an investor in the company, reacts really badly to poast I make and he's started saying I'm corrupt and that I work for the competitors. Then the really personal attacks started. You helped make it a real pleasure. But the personal attacks have become too much and I've decided to pull back. The same set of sock puppets are returning to post lots of long complaints which don't actually mean anything and now they're focusing on me. If I can help you in any way (Robin/Dron007) please let me know, i.e. advice, English, translation of articles or in fact anything, contact me via my email address zachar@nachtschimmen.eu. If I knew that I would get involved in a controversial Belarusian technology company involved in a complex international financial scam I wouldn't have connected my name and identity so close to the project. Live and learn. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Thanks again for your help. Wishing you rhe best and when they've stopped harassing me I may come back and check in the future to make sure it's still pseudo-science free. I thank you again for your patient help and wish you the best of lcuk with whatever you choose to do. By the way; your English is equally good as that flowery language that Kmarinas86 uses the 'expert sectioneer' who promotes SkyWay with really strange English. Kindest regards from Belgium, Zachar.Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's their main purpose, knock out anybody who publicly criticizes Skyway. They call it "protection of investments". Anyway you have done huge job editing this article, translating original sources, finding information. Of course they'll try to vandalize the article in future. I hope they'll not succeed in it.Dron007 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

They're already back I fear. You can contact me if you need my advice on anything; last months I've developed an extensive knowedge of the how SkyWay Group works so just let me know. If I notice bad thinks are happening I'll try to control the problem with your help. Wishing you the best; –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice on the Victor Morozov articles. I have removed them to an archive. Which parts of it do you think are untrue?
 * I think it is just an attack to Morozov by some of his enemies. There is nothing verifiable and in any case Wikipedia is not a place for such investigations. We just need to use information from reliable sources and anti-Morozov site evidently is not among them. Dron007 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately although this could be true, the articles make a lot of good points that turn out to be based on fact from the reliable sources. Viktor Morozov exists. He supported the "Cashbery"-scam and "SkyWay" according to other verified references. Schastlivy and other figures named all exist and work for Skyway; the companies that are mentioned all exist. Do you think that Victor Morozov has nothing to do with SkyWay and that we should stop researching his involvement in the business? What about the claims about Schastlivy and the other BVI companies and the white washing of money? We know that there are companies in the SkyWay Group which promote false information, pay journalists and stifle dissent. These articles just explain why and exactly which company does what. They also explain how money is funneled via UK companies from small investors to offshore locations via the shell companies in London. Shouldn't we have the freedom to investigate if these claims are true? No one is suggesting we use this material to change the article, but if any of these claims are true we should have the freedom to investigate these allegations. I just need to hear from you what you think about the allegations because I respect your opinion. Zachar (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that we shouldn't do any researches in Wikipedia especially if we don't plan to edit the article using it. Wikipedia rules prohibit it evidently. And discussion page is not a forum to collect all rumors about the topic. Yes, Morozov exists and refers to Skyway, at least he was one of its managers many years ago and visited the Skyway meeting. That of course means nothing. All other "facts" are not supported by anything and most of them are definitely falsified. That is very primitive attack site, absolutely not reliable. Wikipedia has very strong policy about publishing unchecked negative information about living persons: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" so let's not even waste time to it until strong reliable sources mention it. Dron007 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your care and diligence with this. I really appreciate it. Zachar (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Victor Morozov articles probably made me most curious because they actually made a valid point: there is probably a leading figure behind the SkyWay investment scheme who controls the vested interests of the companies and it is unlikely that it is Anatoly Yunitskiy. If it's not Morozov and it's not Yunitskiy, then who is it that is controlling and profiting the most from the SkyWay empire? It is most certainly not the 'investors'/'share-holders' who don't actually own any real shares to any company and as you've suggested, Yunitskiy has a weekly wage. I sent a mail to the Victor Morozov article publishers requesting clarification for their content and in lieu of receiving an answer I was so surprised by the content that I shared it. It will not surprise you to hear that I still haven't had a response from them. I was surprised that it took days for anyone to post a reply but I'm glad that you did. Although I regret making this material public and I'll think twice before doing it again, these articles made me ask some questions that demand answers. Hopefully we will be able to do that from the growing pool of verified sources.


 * You also mention that the discussion page shouldn't be used to collect rumours. The reason why I started collating references like the 'Onliner.by' and 'Tut.by' articles was so that I could see the translations in one place and not have to refer to a wide range of different sources at the same time. Since then I've actually used these references to make changes to the article and reference the correct source. This is actually as far as I know the only place on the web where you can see some of these translations in one place. But if you think the talk page is not an appropriate place for these collated references then there would be no actual harm moving them to an archive as well. Zachar (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also with your approval I will go through my translations of the articles and make a list of the points made in them that are deserving of further investigation and clarification but I won't post them as a result of the being taking from an unverified reference, but base them instead as extensions of points already made in existing references, requesting more information on these particular topics, liek the existence of Schastlivy and his legal companies "Aspect" and "Expert". I'll be more careful this time and post them to my Talk page first and when they're read I'll let you know they are there. I hope you are well. Zachar (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't actually know if talks page is supposed to have such kind of materials. As you probably know Wikipedia recently started the discussion about redesign of talk pages to make it easier for newbies and it wants to make them more structured with easier replying/quoting/signatures adding. At the same time they respect use cases of experienced users and want to keep this page as flexible as possible. So it is probably ok to use it in any way which helps editing the article. The only disadvantage of keeping long articles in talks page (even collapsed) that I see is the big size of the page though it is less than 1MB which is not so much. As for Tut.by and Onliner.by they are reliable sources which are helpful for editing the article so they differ from sites like this pack of fictions.Dron007 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Gruz 200 source
The discussion was made something like 4-5 years ago. And I think there was even back-and-forth discussions on editor's personal pages as well. I myself was against the inclusion of the figure and the source in the infobox for the exact same reason you are mentioning and was more for it being simply mentioned in the main body of the article (but was overruled). Considering the figure is highly out of date at this point (almost 2 years) I think we can safely remove it from the infobox. But still, lets leave a mention of it in the main body of the article for the sake of balance since separatist claims of tens of thousands of dead Ukrainian soldiers, and Ukrainian claims of separatist dead, have also been included (again as part of earlier discussions). If we remove the Gruz 200 claim we would need to remove those as well, which may not be a bad idea considering the UN figures are the most reliable ones (other than self-admitted casualty figures), but I would like to avoid any potential conflict with biased editors, such as it was a few years ago. As for the "failed verification tag" I again point you to WP:CALC, OCHA reported 5,650 separatist dead until 15 February, while the separatists reported an additional 15 deaths after that date (see the DPR casualty reports). EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, I hope you agree with my compromise proposal. If not and you still want to remove the Gruz 200 documented figure from the main body of the article as well then I won't object but I would have to ask that the separatists' claim of 10,000 dead Ukrainians and the Ukrainians' claim of 7,577–14,600 dead separatists be removed as well and we stick only to self-admitted casualty figures by the respective sides, as well as the UN's figures. Which again may not be a bad thing because all of those figures run the risk of them being propaganda by the beligerents, plus they are all out of date by five years at this point. EkoGraf (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not ready to speak about figures but we definitely need to remove this unreliable source (Gruz 200). Any figure should be taken from reliable official sources or from reliable media. If there are no such sources better not provide the figure at all. Don't do any own investigations about it. Wikipedia rules strictly prohibit it. Dron007 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)