Category talk:Ducati

sorry but is it really necessary to write a short description in the context of a page or category that has been bought by an industry group recently? is not a simple news item that should not remain in this area? Also read the history of the changes seem like there was a real abuse of power is not justified, totally undemocratic behavior, we applied a thread bush only to impose their own thinking, by an administrator that is very serious --Holywheel (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

this thing I was completely out, although I follow pretty consistently actions by a user who has participated (not the first mistake that I see where there's his paw) But there is also the intervention of a moderator is not very pleasant, I'm sorry will provide immediately to fix it. If you want to argue about it, before adding more changes it is better to talk about here. It seems to me a gesture primitive and childlike, not aimed at improving the encyclopedia, but as you say, only aiming to defend his opinion. It is not the first time. I fully agree with your speech and apparently not the first. (Also this is a "category" is not an "article") --Serenato (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pava aka Holywheel and Pava aka Serenato, please keep in mind the following:

The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account. Do not log out just to vandalise as an IP address editor. For further information, take a look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry --FAEP (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

bah, I return from vacation and found all this, I only allowed to challenge an action useless without useful purpose to Commons, but only once to want to be right. I am very disappointed in the behavior and FAEP Foroa not have any open talk and behaved in a totally undemocratic, no discussion, and blockages and rb editwar. I questioned the choice of secificare in the description something that has not yet received the official legal (but only between the two parties) is still missing the green light by those who authorize and besides being useless is offline with the other category descriptions (created the page ducats at most) do not understand why this behavior not in line with the philosophy of Wikipedia and Commons. I ask that you discuss this civilly and democratically with this, you bring back the source of the go-ahead for the transfer of ownership and discuss the real need to clarify the ownership by the parent company. (Note well that the description is defended by two Germans on a subject which concerns Germany, where we are? even nationalism?). Meanwhile it restores everything as it was and re-edit it before you get to do it through a civil discourse--Pava (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record and to make Pava aware of his own behavior the following statement:

• The description is based on the corresponding wikipedia articles, the factual accuracy is undisputed and supported by the given references (e.g. REUTERS et al)
• The descision fot the accurate version was/is supported by 1 user (FAEP) and 1 respectively 2 admins (Foroa and Denniss) and the only one who opposed was/is a sockpuppeteer (aka Pava) who has just recently been blocked for his behavior and who is well known for nationalistic statements against french people etc.
• Your reference to "civilly and democratically" is interesting since you yourself have shown no sign of such behavior.
• The other trolling nonsense you've mentioned above is just to senseless for me to even talk about it. If you really want "a civil discourse" why don't you change your attitude and start behaving like an adult.--FAEP (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

do not argue a choice but rather discredit a user to support his actions is not a behavior as an adult. Neither Dennis nor Faep nor Fora have responded with reasoned arguments and choice, while I have made ​​arguments that call for a discussion not an edit war and bullying behavior by one or more users. If you want to confront, argues not discredit and make me look bad to make me a troll. Thus does not contribute to a collaborative thing.

Still I have not yet been answered in a practical choice because it is this anomaly in this category, but I give up, I can not waste my time on these things, what we call only the good quality of commons, and the contents that the actions of their employees. undo changes without discussing question is very far, but very far from a civil and professional behavior. --Pava (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edited the category page with a small description of the firm that doesn't take in count the German acquisition from Audi AG until the German takeover will be officialised (and no, simply acquiring the mark is not a "takeover"). Further reverts will cause immediate blocking of the page and actions towards users. Anyone here has been warned now. Please don't engage edit wars and don't edit if consensus is not reached. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

the "take over" coming soon this is not the focus of the speech, the purchase has received the OK from the CE antitrust, but not as this is the focus of discussion: once received the "takeover" by VW AG, if you have not already received, it is just effetturare and complete the transition, there will soon no one is denying that. Instead, what is questioned is the need to specify it, going out of standard in the category of commons, where there Is it necessary to enter certain details, it is not standard; and it seems a behavior, not on good information and commons, but almost a "personal matter" where some users are trained for uses different from that of the commons. This cruelty has left me very puzzled, as he left me perplexed continue to prefer an edit war instead of a confrontation talk and discuss all on the situation reporting sources and arguing and supporting their actions.--Pava (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)