User talk:Dmhball~enwiki

Ok, thanks. There are some things we're not going to agree on but that's normal. If I had made use of this method to begin with difficulties wouldn't have arisen. I was out of order with the most recent edit I made; I fully apologise for that. Note: my suggestions are only suggestions, if they're taken up fine, if not, same. It's not neccessary to let me know, but thanks. I dont know what the protocol is for these things, but you can retain or delete the replies I've made here on your user page as you prefer. Thank you.

new entry
Thanks for your reply, Dmhball. Ok, firstly - yes, there were strong elements of homophobia amongst a minority of C.'s critics at the time who probably would not have made any comment had the acts been between an adult man and sixteen year old girls. Lots of people have turned a blind eye or at least tempered their disaproval in the past at these cases. I think we have emerged from a time when these things were semi-accepted (I'm talking about sexual relatiinships between adultsand teens, not sexuality) It is now, thankfully, utterly unacceptable for men to have these kinds of relationships with girls of those ages. And the majority of people - certainly the younger generation - think the same of those that occur in a same-sex setting. But there was, at the time, a narrative that adult-teen sexual relationships should be permitted in a gay suituation. We have seen it defended numerous times, whether by pulling out examples from the classical world or by its adult apologists saying that they would have welcomed the attention of an older man when they were teens. Attempts have been made to make this equivalent to normal homosexuality - not least by C. himself; his apology consisted of saying sorry "if his homosexual lifestyle offended anybody". This is deeply offensive, implying that homosexuality encompasses his acts. In past times something like this would have drawn opprobrium because of the same sex issue and not the adult-teen imbalance, and defenders of C have attempted to pretend that this is still the case.

The age issue. I am aware that a British paper made unsubstantiated claims that one of C.'s victims was 15 and this was withdrawn. As far as I am aware there is no dispute that the remainder were 16 and 17. Sixteen year-olds are minors. Sexual acts between adults and males or females of that age are illegal in Ireland, though not Nepal. There is no question of defending them outside of the kind of discourse that seeks to lower the consent age in these perameters. The charity issue. This would be reason enough to merit very strong criticism had the situation involved adults reliant on the benefices of the charity. As has happened, I think, in similar cases involving Oxfam quite recently.

(Note: "after investigation failed to come up with any evidence to suggest that any of the young men (not "boys") were under the legal age of consent, whether under Irish or Nepali law. Considering the extraordinary amount of public comment the case attracted, stirred up by a media frenzy, it would be very surprising if there were not a thorough investigation. In the event, no charges were laid, there was no court case," This is not true - no reasons were given as to why there was no court case, the age of some of C.'s victims - and they are victims - was undoubtedly sixteen, the decision not to pursue a court case was not based on being unable to establish that age of the boys - not men, and under the age of consent as per Irish though not Nepali law)

Now, our personal reasons for the edits. You know C. and I guess don't want him unduly treated here; that should be respected. So, I think, you think the article should not directly mention the facts of the case but only allude to them, and finish by 'in × year C. was interviewed by D. Moore', as you find the issue satisfactorily dealt with in the Hot Press piece. Others at the time were highly critical of the interiew and its framing. It seems to me that this section can't be included without explainingnyhe thrust of the contents of the interview, which then would need to be balanced with the responses to it made elsewhere. I think you would rather the issue not further explored in the piece. My suggestion is to either remove this last sentence altogether - it can then be left to the F.tale of K. page to deal with the opposing views (which I think it does on the whole,fairly), or to modify it in a way that does not suggest that the matter is resolved by the HP piece: this needs no more than the alteration of the sentence to 'C. responded to criticism in an interview' et c., the wording otherwise suggests that the HP article is the resolution of the affair - some may believe it is, some may beliece it isn't, both views are subjective. I'm not going to make further edits to the article. These are my suggestions, and I'll leave it at that. My reasons for the edits were motivated by any suggestion that sexual relationships between adults and teens or younger are permissable or that they should, when they occur, should be seen to be mitigated for any reason. There were and are efforts to normalise this behaviour which should be opposed at all times.

Thank you for the courtesy of your most recent reply, I'm content with most of my motivations; but I think it is more the case that you should reflect on your own motivations as to why you believe a man in his late forties who has sex with a number of teenage boys reliant on his charity organisation should have the matter hidden from his public biography.

new entry
Hi Dmhball ! I'm wondering why you persistently remove details about the subject of Cathal O'Searcaigh's 'controversy', namely the sexual relationships with the teenage beneficiaries of his charity organisation in Nepal (to which he admitted on camera in the film Fairytale of Kathmandu, this is discussed on the wiki page for the documentary). None of this is contested - it did occur, and, as you say, caused quite the furore. And it appears that others have thought it was an incident big enough to merit a section in C.O'S's page, here. You have stated that this has 'died down' - this hardly means that a clear account of the subject should be expunged from the page, though, does it ? As it stands, the section is dealt with by allusion and hints, and an unexplained reference to the Hot Press article where O'S. defended himself. Now, for fairness, it could be said that the subject is fairly dealt with in the page for the Fairytale of K. page. In which case the sentence introducing the Hot Press article should be removed. Otherwise the facts of the controversy need to be included - that an adult in his late forties while acting in his role for the charity had sexual relationships with several teenage boys the charity was assisting. The contraction of this into 'power imbalance' is like Victorian code for sexual impropriety. As you obviously know C.O'S., I wonder why you think it proper to conceal these uncontested events from his wikipedia entry ? Is it proper that middle-aged adults should engage in sexual relationships with teenagers and that their reputations should then be whitewashed by concealing these attested events from their biographies ? These are very serious actions. Tidy the article up, I'm not out to 'get' at Cathal O'S. - he's done harm enough to himself; but the issue cannot be expunged, and it (the article) needs to read clearly and reference the issue properly. Your edits make it look like a portion of text that has so many parts scribbled out that it no longer makes sense.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dmhball. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dmhball~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

COI
Hi there. If you are friends with Cathal Ó Searcaigh, you shouldn't be editing his article, as there is a clear conflict of interest. Can you clarify what the position is? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

response to User:Bastun
Yes, I see the problem, but I'm sure you know the literary world in Ireland is one in which everybody knows everybody else. (I'm very peripheral to it, and in contact mainly with a number of poets.) It's likely that nobody could either tend Cathal's website or defend it from occasional vandalism, if the rule were applied narrowly. I certainly have a friendly relationship with him, I do know him, but I see him maybe once a year, at the moment much less. So in that sense we're not close friends. The problem is a real one: finding someone who knows Cathal's poetry and keeps in touch with his frequent publications, but who doesn't know him personally. He knows everyone!

If you can suggest a solution I'd be grateful and would gladly hand over responsibility to someone else, but I would still feel duty bound to keep his site on my watch list and act on vandalism if nobody else jumps in and does it. Incidentally, for completeness, I should point out that at least I'm not paid for the bit of editing I do. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Were you involved in the row in Aosdána that arose over the defense of O'Searcaigh (after the teen sex-abuse in Nepal) that featured prominently in the news at the time ? You certainly were at the time, and are now still, a member of Aosdána. Were you among the signatories of the letter sent to the Irish Times in defense of O'Searcaigh ? Beacuse above, you were being very vague about the extent of your involvment with these controversies (and, hence, your suitability to be gatekeeper on this article)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/row-looms-within-aosdana-over-o-searcaigh-documentary-1.921020

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-20215392.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/controversy-over-cathal-o-searcaigh-1.905180 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.69 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Reply
Hi. I'm not sure exactly who I'm replying to! - it's just a serial number in the signature, but I assume it's still Bastun. Here are my answers. I've lived in Scotland for over 40 years, although I still visit Ireland fairly often. Hence, at the time of the controversy, at least at its height, I only heard about it peripherally and intermittently through radio broadcasts during short spells in Ireland, and had never met Cathal although I knew about his work. I was not involved with the controversy among members of Aosdana, and I wasn't ever a member of Aosdana -- I don't know where you got the idea that I was. So you could say that I came on the whole thing (including meeting Cathal for the first time) after the row had died down a lot, and the undoubted problem could be looked at in a balanced way. I may however have been influenced by conversations with other literary people, as inevitably happens, but I tried to look at it from all angles and draw my own conclusions. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cathal Ó Searcaigh extended bibliography (February 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cathal Ó Searcaigh extended bibliography and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Cathal_%C3%93_Searcaigh_extended_bibliography Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MicrobiologyMarcus&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cathal_%C3%93_Searcaigh_extended_bibliography reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 14:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cathal Ó Searcaigh extended bibliography
Hello, Dmhball~enwiki. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cathal Ó Searcaigh extended bibliography, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)