User talk:TFMassad

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Approximations of pi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (Fix | Ask for help)
• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I've undone your edit to the article on squaring the circle. Thanks for your note in the edit summary; before adding content back, I think it'd be useful to discuss what does or doesn't fit in the article.

To start, content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources - preferably ones which are independent of the subject - and should reflect what those sources say without drawing independent/original conclusions. Especially with something as 'controversial' as the impossibility of the quadrature of the circle, peer reviewed papers are in my view necessary for giving weight (in terms of space in the article's text) to a theory. In the case of the content you added, it seems to be sourced entirely to the publisher itself, and the content does not seem to be peer reviewed.

However, in terms of mentioning geometric invariant theory, if there is a branch relevant to squaring the circle it may warrant inclusion in one of the other sections of the article. Perhaps the "incorrect constructions" section, depending on the context. Do you know if there are peer-reviewed papers discussing geometric invariant theory's approach/relevance to this problem?

Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

yes there are peer reviewed articles. One is being published by ICOMATHAPP in the next couple of months. peer review was completed last year before inclusion in the journal. I also have a copy of the original treatise and will be attending another math conference where it will be discussed in Japan, April of this year. perhaps after the journal's published that should suffice as proof of peer review. TFMassad (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would still constitute a conflict of interest. Generally, what you want is secondary sources, that is, reliable sources that discuss the material you are trying to add. What you are proposing is linking only to primary sources, and sources that are original to you to boot. I would have deleted your addition, and would likely remove it as well if the only citations are to primary sources you authored. Magidin (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, your addition was both badly placed (even if both accurate, properly sourced, relevant, and notable, it would not belong in the lede!) and badly written. Sorry, but "As such, he conjectures that though no algebraic solution can exist, in respect to Lindemann, a strictly ancient, Euclidean geometric one can and does and is the result of geometric invariant theory" is not a well written sentence. Magidin (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am worried that the current version of your user page has problems with WP:FAKEARTICLE. It is ok to give basic biographical details about yourself, but the page should not give the impression that it is a Wikipedia article. The chances of anyone squaring the circle are pretty thin given Ferdinand von Lindemann's proof that Pi is a transcendental number. Wikipedia should not be used to promote ideas that are not generally accepted within the academic community.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is from a peer reviewed article being published in the Journal of ICOMATHAPP 2025. And it certainly withstands the rigors of Euclidean rules. If you had read the entry at all, you might have read that it does not violate Lindemann, which is presented in the entry, with hyperlink, and uses geometric invariant theory to solve it. Are you an expert in the field of geometric invariants? Probably not, but I am. This is the field that I work in as a mathematician, submitting peer reviewed papers on the subject. I acknowledge that this is a recent discovery from 2025. The findings are still being presented at other math conferences this year for review, such as Osaka April 10-14th. Without access to present these findings in a public forum such as Wikipedia, it is difficult to get legitimate feedback. Too often, people, including mathematicians become armchair experts and point to Lindemann because they have access to the internet and do not review the actual conjecture. If the article is read, one can see clearly what the proof claims and to this point no one has been able to refute it on its merits.

Also, I was using my user page as a sand box to see how to utilize the tools for editing and creating new pages. This is an article I am committed to listing shortly. It does not have to stay part of my user profile, other than the fact that it explains who I am and what I specialize in. TFMassad (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am worried about the publication fee shown here. The reality is that some organizations will publish any mathematical theory as long as you throw enough money at them. This is not the same thing as peer review.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: That looks to me to be a page for submission of a potential talk at a conference, not publication in a journal. That said, "Journal of ICOMATHAPP 2025" reads to me not as a peer reviewed journal that publishes original research, but either as a proceedings volume for ICOMATHAPP 2025 (which could potentially be peer-reviewed at the same level, but need not be), or perhaps even as a program for the conference. I cannot find such a journal indexed in MathSciNet or Zentralblatt (though they could be under some other name/abbreviation). In either case, it would not be accurate to describe it as a "peer reviewed journal". Magidin (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

You appear to have a close connection to a subject about which you have written on Wikipedia that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Do not try to use your user page to promote your personal achievements. See Wikipedia:User pages for further advice. Deb (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)