User talk:SeanBeans1981

Hi SeanBeans1981! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've restored your deletion. H:IL explains how interlanguage links work.--AntientNestor (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The article Trinity College Dublin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trinity College Dublin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Your additions in this edit here, have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.)

To see the possible source of the copyrighted text, look in the edit summary which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. There should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation, set off using the blockquote template. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 18:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trinity College Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Copley Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Brinkley (astronomer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodbridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Ginger Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern literature.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trinity College Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Loftus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trinity College Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William C. Campbell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trinity College Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William C. Campbell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your good-faith contributions. However, I have reverted your recent deletion. As AntientNestor has explained before, please see H:IL. Cheers! x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 04:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello there,

I reverted your edit to the lead of Dracula because the previous version was more concise and said everything that needs to be said. This is a featured article and there is no need to make changes to the lead unless you can show that they are definite improvements. If you think your version is a definite improvement, you are welcome to open a discussion on the article talk page and seek consensus for your change. I have also rewritten the lead of the Bram Stoker article to make it more concise. Yes, Dracula is his most famous work, but there is no need to repeat this in several different ways in the lead. Once again, if you disagree with my edits I am happy to discuss them further on the article Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes your version looks very good, thank you. More concise now. We can keep the milestone part, so that its similar to the lead of Arthur Conan Doyle article, both authors worked together. The obituary in lead can be deleted too, to make it more concise. SeanBeans1981 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edit to this lead today. I think "most famous powers" is more correct than "most recognisable powers"; it's literally a major plot point in the story that characters don't initially recognise this power when Dracula uses it. --Belbury (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. Thank you! SeanBeans1981 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Hope you're well. I spotted that you nominated Bram Stoker at GAN. You have quite low authorship on the article (~12% of the text), which some reviewers may see as a drive-by nomination. I can see you rewrote the lead, added some material from Dracula, and nominated. I believe the article needs much more work to meet the WP:GA criteria. There are numerous unsourced statements, for example. I think it is very likely to be quickfailed. I would gently suggest withdrawing the nomination and spending more time reading modern scholarship about Stoker, reviewing the existing sources, making sure they reflect what the sources say, making sure unsupported material has citations. It is unfair to a reviewer to nominate and expect them to do that work when they can't be sure you haven't. I hope that makes sense.

When I nominated Dracula for good article, I added around 75 sources (rewriting every word in the process). You can see what it used to look like here. It took months of reading and work! I'd say the quality of Dracula in 2019 is very similar to the quality of Bram Stoker now. As in, it needs a lot of work and isn't nearly ready. – ImaginesTigers 12:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Imagines, yes thats true. I have withdraw the GA nomination, and will add citations to Bram Stoker article. To withdraw, only the GAN template has to be deleted from Talk page, yes? SeanBeans1981 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's right! – ImaginesTigers 22:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Jonathan Swift has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Samuel Beckett has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SeanBeans1981. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)