Talk:Gregorij Rožman

message: I have edited the article to incorporate some of the recent changes, even where they are not entirely relevant to the article. I have left out what is POV, what is inaccurate, and what requires sources. Hopefully this will be acceptable. I would think it appropriate to discuss further changes here before editing the article, and especially please bear in mind WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Serb pages, anti-Croat Serbian post-war claims, stereotypical names are not POV? Much of your changes are extremely POV and not neutrally historical. 'Hangman of the Serbs' must be taken out; it is a Serbian propaganda allegation. As are most of the Tito Yugoslav court decisions on 'leading Catholic figures'. I still cannot see how the Royal Italian troops were "fascists". And was Churchill a fascist too? Probably for you as an atheist Slovenian, probably a supporter of another Rozman.Smith2006 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: None of the above comments are worthy of a reply. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AlasdairGreen27.  A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Smith2006, you will have noticed that I have removed your tag. For the purposes of us having a reasonable discussion, would you be kind enough to explain what exactly it is about this article that you think, from your obviously highly-informed and neutral standpoint, is not NPOV? Apologies if it is not immediately clear to me, but what should be changed, and why? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to set out your points. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag - question to Smith2006 

message: Smith2006, regarding your changes to the intro, it is hardly appropriate for you to accuse anyone of bias. Given that:
* your knowledge of this topic is precisely zero; 
* you are openly anti-Semitic (see, for example this edit summary, or  this talk page contribution); 
* you seem to question whether Hitler was anti-Semitic ; 
* that you edit to say the Nazis were "described as" fascistic ; 
* that you edit articles without sources to make them sympathetic to the Third Reich ; 
* that you devote a significant amount of time to uploading photos of Hitler and his subordinates with the odd edit summary 'subject "died" in 1945' (as opposed to what?) .No need, therefore, for anyone to wonder about your interest and POV here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biased" intro 

message: Viator Slovenicus thinks that this article needs a POV tag. He does not have the knowledge, wit, or bravery to do what is required under the rules, that is, explain why a tag is needed on the talk page.  So I say to Viator and anyone and everyone else reading this: let's have a discussion, let's talk about the article, about its strengths and weaknesses, about how it can be improved. Let's open the whole thing up to peer review, expand it, add more references, all that we need to make an article that could maybe go for GA status. That would be great. But drive by-and-disappear Viator-style tagging is wholly destructive, and I would say this to Viator: if you knew anything about the subject, you would be willing and perhaps able to entertain a talk page discussion. You are operating on pure prejudice, without a single reference to support your purely personal POV. Something (else) that you are unaware of is the requirement to justify a tag at the talk page of any article. You are unaware that you cannot simply add them - you have to explain why. So start explaining pronto. You've had enough time. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For those that have seen the tag at the top of the article and are heading here in hope of reading, even maybe contributing to, a discussion to justify the addition of a tag that the article is not NPOV, well, sorry to disappoint you, you can't. Viator Slovenicus, the tag adder, cannot assemble the merest morsel to justify his tag. Even though the tag itself says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Sadly, there is no discussion, because Viator thinks it's perfect to add tags and run away and hide from a discussion or debate. I have challenged him on numerous occasions to present his arguments in justification of the tag, but no, never, he can't. So what does that tell us? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viator Slovenicus and his tags 

message: User:85.27.35.54 I understand that the "new version" isn't all objective, but I don't think that simply reverting everything is a good thing. The "new"  version is, as far as I've managed to clean up, much better than what was there before. 
I don't know what exactly do you find subjective (or what you think is purposely left out of the article), so please discuss the subject here (and be as specific as possibile). I already put back some parts, which I think are completely unbiased. Tadej5553 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The newly added contents (pretty much everything before the "Relations with the German occupiers" chapter) has many grammar errors, I suspect it's more or less a direct translation from some text in slovene. The contents is, I think, very good otherwise, so it would be a shame to just delete it.
I'd be very glad if anyone, who is "an expert" (native speaker) in english takes his time to attend the article, since my english is no sufficient to correct everything. Tadej5553 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar errors 

message: The zealots of the Catholic Church that claim that Rožman scurried away instantly after Hitler's birthday mass may have trouble trying to explain away the photographic evidence of him happily embracing Rosener, after the mass at the Central Stadium in Bežigrad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.48.219 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you provided a reliable source of this image that actually confirms it was taken after the event. The way you put it, is not any better than Rožman apologists and will certainly not improve anything. — Yerpo Eh? 18:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The assassin(s) of the Slovenes in happy embrace 

message: I have added a POV ident to this article following its assumption by POV specialists. It is a classic example of Wikipedia's profound, rock-bottom unreliability in Balkan or semi-Balkan areas. Christ, God help anyone who took seriously your 
Although in some books and in internet obe can read that bishop Rožman was funneling money to South America from a Swiss bank account set up "to aid refugees of the Catholic religion", there is absolutely no evidence to that  and in his correspondence there is no evidence of any contacts to such croatian circles. To get an American visa bishop Rožman did not visit the consulate of Berne, he communicated with the United states Consulate General at Zürich on May 25 for the purpose of obtainig a visitorŽs visa  to come to the United states. On May 28 he appeared at the Consulate general where he was informed about the United States regulations regarding the issue of a non-quota immigration visa as a minister of religion. Rožman and Šarić were not together in Switzerland. Rožman  was residing at the Institut Menzingen, near Zug and Šarić was residing at Haute Rive near Friborg. Šarić was not interested in coming to US and he remained in Europe.'
This is a paragraph written purely to deny the sourced literature.
Your website is mostly edited by teenagers with absolutely fuck all knowledge of history. And, many, many of whom cannot write in English. The result is as you would expect.
:I'm not going to answer on Zeatle's behalf, but what website are you talking about!?  And I'm removing the POV-tag: almost everything in the article is sourced by reliable sources (accept the part that wasn't rewritten yet, Yerpo even did his best to add some leftist sources so some anonymus troll like you has no competence to talk about "assumption by POV specialists", which of course (just like you) remain unnamed... Tadej5553 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gregorij Rožman. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sloveniatimes.com/en/inside.cp2?uid=FC70D49D-E92C-BD42-9706-A2F248A84026&linkid=news&cid=1BB540C4-EA25-0226-785F-74436DBF408E
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gregorij Rožman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002120148/http://shrani.si/f/A/js/2yMrcRzk/avvisoss1.jpg to http://shrani.si/f/A/js/2yMrcRzk/avvisoss1.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217053335/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006220358/http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/cia/cia0001.html to http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/cia/cia0001.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gregorij Rožman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327203002/http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/83-skof-gregorij-rozman-vojna-revolucija to http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/83-skof-gregorij-rozman-vojna-revolucija
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327202939/http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/80-skof-gregorij-rozman to http://www.zaveza.si/index.php/home/misel-in-spomin/45-kof-gregorij-roman/80-skof-gregorij-rozman
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified