User talk:Michaelatobias

Angle trisection

A privately published proof is not appropriate for Wikipedia to use as a reference.Naraht (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

is the truth ok to reference? Michaelatobias (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

As what I sent you when you commented on my user page, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research may also be useful to you.Naraht (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

won't this look silly if you're wrong? And if I'm wrong, it is the most-precise method expressed Michaelatobias (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLutejg3UkGdy74cILOfXuvkkBEEDoVJ30&si=gGCkdsjs4LHac38z

Refute or verify Michaelatobias (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to work on whatever nonsense you like on your own YouTube channel or in your own free time. Thousands of amateurs have wasted years of their lives making up bogus ways to trisect angles and convincing themselves they are legitimate, despite the fact that it is impossible. It seems like a shame to work on something with no chance of success, but it's relatively harmless to anyone else, and no one can stop you. However, if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia with nonsense original research, you will likely be blocked from editing. –jacobolus (t) 16:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

you likely haven't tried it yourself.

It works Michaelatobias (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Michaelatobias It doesn't matter to Wikipedia if it works. It matters whether it has been published in a reliable source. Wikipedia is designed *not* to be the first place to look for something, but rather to include what WP:Reliable Sources sources say. (And I agree with what user:jacobolus has said.)Naraht (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

are you saying it does not matter that the problem has been solved Michaelatobias (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on the rules of Wikipedia, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article since it has not been published in a Reliable Source. A solution to the Angle trisection problem would not belong in a Mattress Supply Store, a Pizza Restaurant, or Laguardia Airport among other places. In the current situation (not published in a Reliable Source), Wikipedia is one of those places.Naraht (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate the need to regulate and ensure that wiki, albeit edited by all, remains reliable.

Also, I reason and demonstrate the solution. I received some congratulations from my former professors and feel honored. If someone can show an error, let them.

Otherwise, why would Wikipedia not enjoy the new and correct solution? The reason to investigate the validity of a source is to ensure honest research, chiefly. But this is something that requires you to do it yourself if you do not believe what I do in front of a camera.

The individual who "proved" it cannot be done, only proved that he was looking at the problem one way. And I want to again express my gratitude that you ensure wiki remains reliable. Michaelatobias (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

As I indicated, not what Wikipedia does. There are many Mathematical Journals which are considered Reliable Sources, if this is published in one, it would be appropriate for Wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed your bio says you studied mathematics. Do you have any comment or question on the arclimits method I describe?

The problem of trisecting an angle may be solved by trisecting an arc of the angle.

To trisect an arc, sandwich it between a straight line and a semicircle, all with the same endpoints.

The straight line may be easily trisected. The semicircle may be easily trisected. And thus, by connecting the points that trisect the line and semicircle, the entire family of arcs between the arclimits will show to be trisected.

Why not try it? Why suppose it is impossible? The proof against it shows how complicated the problem gets when you look at angles through the trig functions, and ends with no known manner to simplify the cubic expression. But looking at angles as arcs, and manipulating a given arc, may be done with classic instruments. Glory be to God! Michaelatobias (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I did study Mathematics. I have no comment. Even if I agreed with you, it would make no difference in terms of whether it belongs in Wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m_-Yfd7KCc&pp=iggCQAE%3D

Peace be with you Naraht. Idk if you're Indian or Pakistani but God bless the Sikhs and hallelujah for their Guru Granth Sahib, and the Vedas

This has been my first edit, followed by my first and hopefully last edit war. I don't think my first edit was academic enough. I can't say I'll do much more for angle trisection than I have. Please see the 3 min video to which I have linked above, and perhaps there is a way to message me privately about it if you would like MichaelATobias@gmail Michaelatobias (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

and I see the name Naraht is probably from Star Trek now that I look it up, though at first glance I guessed Indian. Also can be a contraction of Nazareth, hallelujah Michaelatobias (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello, I'm Lp0 on fire. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Angle trisection, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lp0 on fire () 17:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. lp0 on fire () 17:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)