User talk:Soberfox

Welcome!

Hi Soberfox! 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! Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do really enjoyed contributing articles by academic sources. It makes me feel like editing a live academic research :) I am really grateful for your welcome and for pointing me to the tutorial and Teahouse—they look like great resources for getting more involved. I’m excited to dive deeper into topics like AI alignment and mathematical frameworks, where reliable sourcing is key. Looking forward to collaborating with the community and making meaningful additions! Soberfox (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm 45dogs. An edit that you recently made to Apache HTTP Server seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 11:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your warning. You are right that I do used large language models to made the change. I see that you reverted the edit. I will be more careful. Soberfox (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided additions

I reverted a few of your recent edits. They are random papers that happen to be related to the wikipage topic but are not improvements to the page.

Data structures -- you added a paper about a very particular implementation detail, not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about data structures. (The paper is in fact referenced in the more appropriate article on persistent data structures.)
Merge sort -- you added a paper about a tweak to the algorithm which has almost no citations or independent coverage, there is no evidence this is an enyclopedia-worthy addition to a general article on merge sort.
Proof of work -- you added a paper about a proposed mechanism with almost no citations or independent coverage or evidence it is enyclopedia-worthy addition.

Also note several other of your recent edits have been reverted for similar reasons.

Turkish people Your addition of an article on genetics of Turkish people repeated information which was already present in subsequent work.
Apache HTTP server Your addition to the Apache web server was a bunch of very particular papers and configuration options of interest to nobody except possibly somebody far into the weeds of Apache configuration. (And as the revert noted, it was obviously generative-AI.)

I'm not going through your whole edit history. But the pattern is pretty clear: you are dis-improving articles by adding descriptions of random papers. Eventually most of your additions will come to the attention of experienced editors, who will waste quite a bit of time undoing or (possibly) improving them.

Please take some time to review Wikipedia guidelines and practices. There are places you can ask questions and get guidance. And them maybe review some of your own prior edits. -- M.boli (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your critical feedback and warning. From now on I will think more before pressing the "apply changes" button. Soberfox (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]