I though you were a troller and not an editor deleting my material. I apologize for that. I am not sure what I didn't cite. I may have done it incorrectly so I need to learn more about wikipedia (i.e. read). Anything dealing with cardiology should be removed or heavily edited. I came up with concept, can document it, and am not even referred in the document. I have posted this on other social media that I pioneered OCT cardiology and other areas of medicine, and am not mentioned in wikipedia. Since I have been a leader in the field for over 25 years, that gets peoples attention. The 1 dimensional OCT section (just like 1 dimensional ultrasound) is not controversial, there are just people who will not like good when I put it in the public domain. I used my real name when I posted in case anyone wanted tpo debate it. I have read every one of those papers and they are accessible, it is just people don't know about it. When I wrote Optical Coherence Tomography: Principles and Applications I read more than 500 papers. This included the major works from 1976 to 1995. But as I have told people on social media to buy Barry Masters 700 page collection of these papers (which sells for $10), people can read them for themselves. Anyway, sorry about thinking you were a troller. Can you let me know about what you are doing about cardiology? Best, Mark OCTMGH (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
You may also want to reexamine this unreferenced section. "It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." This isn't discussing a used car. What paper shows OCT prevents vision loss for any of these disorders? I am unaware of any and none were cited for this medical claim. OCTMGH (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Thank you for your insight and expertise. I have included a basic section because the one on the Optical Coherence Tomography (wikipedia) section is too complex. I have added pre-cardiovascular OCT to it because the Optical Coherence Tomography (wikipedia) does not contain it, deleted when I added it, and pretends they invented the technology out of nowhere. I did heavily reference the document and people keep deleting.
If you feel that the theory section of the optical coherence tomography section is too complex, you are free to edit it. But including a theory section in both pages leads to extra work to maintain both sections. And if someone deleted any additions you made to the optical coherence tomography section, rather than just adding the same material somewhere else, you should seek to understand why your addition was deleted in the first place. Was it unsourced? Poorly written? Don't just replicate the problem somewhere else. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your response. The theory section n the optical coherence tomography section is clearly written by an engineer. It would not be possible to correct without completely erasing it. Plus I am writing to physicians and non-physicians. With regard to work between 1981-1991, they don't want it. The post is claiming to have invented something in 1991. I show all the work prior, beginning in 1981 and a prior patent from 1990. People who say they invented it in 1991 would not benefit from prior art. If what I posted has no value (fully referenced), they why care. If it shows there was prior art, anyone making false claims is going to oppose it. The entire section is filled with twisted or incorrect information. The response I got was I could comment on cardiology work (1993) but not before that. The people whose work is not represented have the write to be represented (and I am not one of those investigators).
Mark, perhaps you have failed to note that there is also a Layperson's explanation section of the article. Also, I will continue to recommend that basic information related to OCT in should be included at the optical coherence tomography article; this article should limit itself to the intracoronary OCT procedure. Any citable information you have about the history of OCT, and any improvements you feel are needed to the description of how the technology works, should be made there. As for your claims that your edits at the OCT page were rejected, I presume you mean the significant edits made as an unregistered IP address. Since these edits were reverted by another editor, you should discuss with the other editor why they felt the need to revert and try to resolve the problem. Your approach to editing Wikipedia (if I don't get what I want, I'll go elsewhere and try to get it there) is not in the proper spirit of consensus building that we strive for at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
No it is historic. I have not worked for MGH in years. Plus did you check for a huge conflict from the author of the Optical Coherence Tomography. A reason they don't want data prior to 1991 published?
Thanks for your email. If you have the time to look on Amazon you can see I write the textbook of OCT. I am a physician, engineer, and scientist. The Layperson's version is not for laypeople because it was written by an engineer. You can also see there is a lot of talk about theory, technology, and patents. Clinical topics, like oncology, are a few lines but is a chapter in my book. For the intracoronary OCT page I have watched it with barely any information for a long time. Yesterday I write well over half of it and reference, and today large parts get deleted. Maybe a webpage, linkedin, etc are a better way for me to go because I would rather my work not go to waste.
My restoring it was a misunderstanding. I did not know you were an editor, I thought you were someone trolling. I am unsure what other comments I am suppose to respond to. OCTMGH (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Everyone at Wikipedia can be an editor; that's kinda the definition of the website. If you edit a page, you're an editor. I'm an editor. You're an editor. The difference is that some editors act in good faith, and others do not. In the case of your edits, all edits were done in good faith, but were not necessarily good edits. Sometimes, edits are reverted because the material was not properly cited, or another editor feels that the edits are unnecessary. Again, your response in these cases is to contact the editor who reverted you and find out why, and what can be done to resolve the situation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In this edit, your edit summary said, in part, I have explained 1-D or A-scan but the readers will know because ultrasound has an A and B scan (which are used on every echo patient). The Optical Coherence Tomography ignored the a-scan data which is what I add in the history. I added the reference at the end of the paper. Let me address these issues in parts:
Your assumption that readers will know about A-scan (or B-scan) is based on the assumption that everyone knows what an ultrasound scan looks like, or that such scans are called "A-scan" and "B-scan". I, a holder of a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering, and the father of three children all of whom enjoyed the benefits of ultrasound exams before birth, did not know these terms as applied to ultrasound technology. I only happen to know them because I work in the field of radar engineering, which happens to use the same terminology. It is unlikely that the average Wikipedia reader will understand these terms.
The fact that one article has missing information is a poor reason to add that information to another article. Fix the article that is broken, don't attempt to fix the problem elsewhere.
I understand. I will refer only to the techniques already developed but have yet to be applied widespread clinically if that is OK. I would like people to be aware they have been developed and tested in vitro in arteries. I will revert back to the 2016 sales unless I can find hard numbers on sales. Is that sufficient. OCTMGH (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not doing it for self interest. Many young investigators are unaware of this work from the first decade of the millennium and may find it useful to their career. OCTMGH (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that is not OK. Unless something has been described in reliable sources, you cannot add it. If you would like people to be aware of developments, then write a journal article about it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not promotional it is historical. Wikipedia had false information which benefited people not involved. There would be a lot from our group because I published the first 10 OCT cardiology papers, I founded Lightlab Imaging, and was the only person to hold NIH grants in OCT cardiology between 1993 and 2007. What you had posted was mythology made up likely by former students. I have already alerted people to what was posted on wikipedia and documented that actual history, with over 10,000 reads by professionals. OCTMGH (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I were you I would be far more concerned about "thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." This isn't selling toasters it is medicine. It is unreferenced as in my review of the literature there is no study to support this. It is a false medical claim which is serious beyond wikipedia policy. And when I corrected it you removed it. OCTMGH (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have no COI. You should be more concerned about who authored this page. The likely authors profit financially from OCT in Ophthalmology. This is in violation of Wikipedia policy. It is made worse when claiming OCT improves vision in patients. OCTMGH (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No COI? Here you claim to have "pioneered OCT cardiology and other areas of medicine" and here you claim to have written "the textbook of OCT." This shows a conflict of interest. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have now reposted stating the conflict. Note that many of the references are not ours, Parsa, Bouma, Abbott, the clinical trials. I don't need to rewrite the past, I actually achieved the work I posted. Other people need to create mythology because they haven't actually done it. OCTMGH (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
COI templates aren't for posting in articles and your edits are still self-promotional so it has been reverted. Please take some time to read WP:COI and familiarize yourself with the guidelines. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The post is self promotion for the Tearney/Bouma groups who were just trainees in the lab when OCT in cardiology was developed. That is shown in the article I sent from MIT Tech in 1997. They leave everything out that does not involve them. That is a COI. Please remove the line OCT improves vision, there is no data to support this and it is a false medical claim. That is very serious. OCTMGH (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
What "post" is self-promotion for Tearney/Bouma groups? I can find no line in Optical coherence tomography that says it improves vision. If you have specific criticisms/suggestions for the article please use the article talk page but stop attempting to insert yourself into articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
"It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." There is no data to support this and could lead to patients and medicare paying for the image.
The entire paragraph that I replaced is a mythology that Bouma and Tearney group the important contributions in pioneering the technology. It was likely written by their group because who else would benefit from posting this mythology. OCTMGH (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Accurately listed the historical events, fully referenced, is not self promotion it is correcting the insanity which was allowed to be posted. OCTMGH (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is probably a good time for you to contact your legal department. I will continue to post these exchanges on social medial, not willing to provide an accurate history, and encourage people not to contribute to wikipedia. My social media connections are not hair dresses, they are among the most powerful and influential people in medicine, science, and engineering. OCTMGH (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
In addition, 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.
I should not have had to waste my time correcting mythology in the first place. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to be accurate. I am tired of this. I will deal with it outside Wikipedia. OCTMGH (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I pointed out there is no evidence to support a medical claim and it is unreferenced "It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." There is no data, having been in this field for 30 years, that OCT prevents vision loss. If it did it would have been cited and this statement should be removed. OCTMGH (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have a conflict of interest because I have done 30 years of research in the area and pioneered OCT in cardiovasular medicine and nontransparent tissue. {{edit COI}} OCTMGH (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I made wikipedia aware that a information in a post contained unreferenced information that to my knowledge represents medical information. I did not suggest I would act on it but requested it would be rectified. "It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." I have been in the OCT field for 30 years. Clinical trials have demonstrated morbidity and /or mortaility benefits in cardiology and cervical cancer. I am unaware, have searched this topic, that it prevents vision loss. It is in the interest of wikipedia to remove this statement (which is unreferenced). I should not be penalized for drawing attention to something problematic to wikipedia. OCTMGH (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I made no legal threat. I recommended the editor talk to the wikipedia legal team about the implications of the line "It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." Last January I was asked by James Fujimoto and Eric Swanson to apply for an award which was OCT in ophthalmology and cardiology, where I work in the latter. When I reviewed the eye literature I could not find a single study that OCT improves vision, the only clinical endpoint. I declined being part of the award submission as I have seen people like Nobel prize winner David Baltimore battle through fraud allegations. I was alerting wikipedia, as to confer with legal, so that you could also avoid this issue. OCTMGH (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@OCGMGH: Understood. However, I do not believe the line in question in the optical coherence tomography article (It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients.) implies that OCT has directly healed patients, but rather that it has enhanced the diagnosis of those conditions, allowing them to be treated earlier to prevent vision loss. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
That actually isn't true either. There is no evidence that OCT is superior to conventional diagnostics, in particular just simple vision testing. This is after 20 years, If it was a superior diagnostic I would have joined with Eric and Jim. This is why they provide no reference.Refusing to be involved may have cost me the Lasker and Presidential awards. I can give you many examples of why seeing more is not better, but I will give you one. In one study doing MRIs of the hip in asymptomic volunteers, average age 38, they found something to operate on 78%, but these were asymptomatic volunteers. In the recent Dragon study out of China (doi: 10.1111/aos.14588) and one other study out of China, they used visual acuity test and OCT interchangably with no difference. But you can just look at the billing code. There is no billing code for OCT in the eye after 20 years. They use the generic CPT code 92134. There is no study that says OCT is better than simple visual acuity test and an Ophthalmoscope exam, and I think there is a high possibility there never will be. People are now beginning to define what is in an OCT image to do double blind trials. But you will not find a study that proves OCT is superior to conventional approaches because it does not exist. I aggressively searched the literaure before turning down Eric and Jim for an award submission. OCTMGH (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If someone produces a paper that shows it effects vision superior to conventional diagnostics I will drop it. But patients are paying cash or medicare is being billed for an unproven technique. This occurred in cardiology for year. Even though I pioneered OCT in non-transparent tissue (particularly cardiology) I critiicized its sale in papers and on Abbotts posts because no trial proved its utility (this was against my best interest). In the last three year, there has been a large number of trials finally. It reduces MI, death, contrast use, procedure time and increases stent expansion. Even the two cervical cancer trials out of china show morbidity benefits. I would love to see one study that shows this expensive technology benefits patients for eye imaging. OCTMGH (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
WikiDan61 has noted he believes, which was my intention, when I said discuss legal I was trying to protect wikipedia from problems, not threatening legal action. I should not be blocked for that. I believe that sentence is a good faith mistake and if there would have been a threat of action it would not be legal, but mandatory medicare reporting which I did not suggest. OCTMGH (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
"I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." Can the block please be removed. OCTMGH (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{unblock | reason=Your reason here "I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." Can the block please be removed} OCTMGH (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{unblock | reason=Your reason here "I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. I asked the editor to contact the wikipedia legal team for wikipedia's protection" Can the block please be removed} OCTMGH (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{unblock | reason=Your reason here "I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. I asked the editor to contact the wikipedia legal team for wikipedia's protection" Can the block please be removed} OCTMGH (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I made no legal threat. I made wikipedia aware of something posted which could lead to issues for wikipedia. I actually tried to correct it, unsubstantiated medical claims. I have no interest in legal action, was trying to help wikipedia, and should not be blocked OCTMGH (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I also see you've been violating WP:COI and, as far as I can see, have not made the mandatory disclosure. You should do so here on this talk page before requesting another unblock. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the record, while I disagree with much of OCTMGH's editing, I believe they have clarified the meaning of their statement: it is their belief (one I don't agree with) that there is information in the optical coherence tomography article that is medically incorrect, and therefore opens Wikipedia to the possibility of legal action by readers for having read incorrect information. OCTMGH is not, themself, threatening legal action against Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the only way to get your block reverted is to add a statement here to the effect of "I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." This might be sufficient to convince the admins of your intentions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!15:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
"I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." Can the block please be removed. OCTMGH (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:OCT book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You noted, "This is in the public domain. It can be found on google, amazon, etc" This is categorically false. Just because something can be found on google or amazon or similar sites does not imply it is public domain. In fact, in almost all cases, the material will indeed be copyrighted. WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE cover this in great detail. This is an understandable (and common) mistake but one you must not make again. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for providing your expertise. As you can tell, though I have been reading a lot of wikipedia policy, I have a lot to learn. Attached are my notes on the outline of the book, which ultimately modified (and I can note). Is this acceptable.
I though I could use the book cover because as it is all over the internet including google images. I keep reading wikipedia rules but am still making mistakes. This demonstrates the areas of research of OCT, but is my notes and not the property of anyone else. OCTMGH (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am still trying to get unblocked for what was viewed as a threat, but I was just alerting wikipedia to a potential liability to wikipedia. OCTMGH (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This image demonstrates nothing, since it has no context. If you want to list the areas of OCT research, you could just cite the book without needing to provide an image of it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of the sources are to his own publications.
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:Mark Brezinski 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.
Thank you. I will review what you sent me and do my best to provide a better submission. I submitted an article from MIT TECH (now called Tech) which is not an internal publication to MIT as the majority of subscribers. In the book The Hundred Year History of Brigham and Women's Hospital two section were about me as one of the twenty top investigators in their history. I was in the Wall Street Journal and Boston Globe but never kept the articles. Gary Tearney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_J._Tearney) was my former student who made his biggest advances while in my lab. Are these things helpful. One problem with citations, while now 200,000 OCT intracoronary are performed a year (now owned by Abbott), between 1993 and 2001, I published every paper. In addition, all NIH grants between 1995 and 2010 in this area were mine. I was that far in front of any competition. 2601:19C:527E:3010:717B:B126:DEF:FD5A (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Hundred Year History of Brigham and Women's Hospital might be helpful if it is about you. The other not really. You need to remove all the content from the draft that is sourced to your publications but you can list your most notable/cited works in a Publications section (keep it to 5-7). For claims like "He is best known for achieving Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) imaging in nontransparent tissue (including coronary arteries), when previous groups had failed, but his research achievements extend beyond OCT", requires a secondary reliable sources (i.e. according to who?). Also, you should not be editing logged out given you are blocked as that is considered block evasion. You need to make an unblock request. I will also point you to Autobiography (bad idea to write about yourself), Expert and WikiProject Medicine. I have access to WSJ and Bost Globe archives but if they are an interview with you/your comments, they will not be helpful (i.e. what you know, have said or written is not helpful). If those articles are about you where WSJ and Boston Globe have done their own research/analysis about you/your career, I can see if I can dig those up but I don't want to waste my time if they will not be useful. S0091 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I need to deal with the block, it was a misunderstanding where I was trying to help wikipedia and ended up blocked. Three publications independent of me confirm I developed the technique. In the attached article from PNAS, which i had nothing to do with, states I pioneered OCT in cardiology and other field. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313883120#body-ref-r2) If you search my name it is discussed in the article which is independent of me.
In a book published by Brigham and Women's Hospital (IsBN 978-0-07-178401-6)), pages 163-164 describe how I developed OCT for non-transparent tissue. Do these work?
In MIT tech July 1997, it explicitly states I and james Fujimoto developed OCT imaging in cardiovascular and other non-transparent tissue. OCTMGH (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, OCTMGH!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes misunderstand Wikipedia. What you or another cardiologist believes makes no difference here. Wikipedia only cares about what secondary published reliable sources that are intellectually independent from the subject (no affiliation) have written. S0091 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. I just don't understand my former student's Gary Tearney's wikipedia page. He has achieved very little and is pretty much taking credit for everything except inventing the internet. OCTMGH (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your reason here "I have not, nor do I intend, to initiate any legal action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. I asked the editor to contact the wikipedia legal team for wikipedia's protection" Can the block please be removed
We are talking about your unblock request (I am assuming you are OCTMGH), not an additional block. You added an unblock request which was not formatted correctly so I fixed it for you and copied it to it's own section. Then after that you tried to add a duplicate unblock request thus my note to stop adding additional unblock requests. The one above is sufficient and is pending review. I should have been more clear. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
He was not even there when we began the program. He was a student for a while, then he left. WE advanced OCT forward. We built Lightlab Imaging which is now owned by Abbott. He was not involved. He is just a trainee in the OCT story. OCTMGH (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your issue is with the source so your remedy to is pursue having source corrected. As has been stated several times now, Wikipedia largely summarizes what secondary reliable sources state. If your purpose here is to right great wrongs (read that), you will likely be unsuccessful. S0091 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not trying to right great wrongs, I have been trying to post referenced material which reflects that actual state of the field. At this point I am giving up. An example is the statement that OCT improves vision in patients which is unreferenced. Last year I was asked by (Redacted) to join in an award submission for the eye and cardiology. When I did a literature search for the eye, I found no paper to support the medical claim, just a large amount of sales. I would not join them. When (Redacted) (been doing OCT imaging in the eye the longest) wrote an article on the topic in the NEJM, she posted the article on her Linkedin site. I ask her and the 100s of ophthamologists on her site to provide a single reference. They couldn't. The medical claim on wikipedia is unreferenced, which I believe is against wikipedia policy. Similar in the same post, the statement is made "The first FD-OCT imaging study was reported by Massachusetts General Hospital in 2008" I can provide the receipt of purchasing an FD-OCT system in 2007 from Thorlabs. The experimental systems existed before that. I post citing literature, not making false claims. OCTMGH (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I redacted the names because the statements violate Wikipedia's living people policy which applies to all pages. I don't think it was your intent to violate policy but extra care must be taken when writing about living people.
If you are unblocked I strongly recommend not editing articles involving OCT directly because you are unlikely to maintain a Neutral point of view as defined by Wikipedia and you do not yet understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You can make WP:edit requests (you can use the WP:Edit Request Wizard) on the article's talk page or work with another editor. It appears @WikiDan61 was trying to work with you but not sure if they are still interested in doing so. I also suggest reading WP:EXPERT which provides guidance to subject-matter experts about editing Wikipedia and WP:MEDRS which is the sourcing policy for medical topics. To suggest changes to an article, be sure your request includes sources that meets the guidelines or if you are requesting material be removed, include why it should be removed (i.e. it is unsourced, cited source(s) does not meet the meet the policy, source(s) fails the verifiability policy, etc.). Keep requests concise. You can also post a note at WT:WikiProject Medicine which is monitored by editors who have expertise with Wikipedia and medical topics to get guidance.
Thank you for removing the names. Even though I have read a lot of wikipedia policies, it seems that I still run into ones I haven't seen. I think once the block is cleared, I likely won't be edited wikipedia. There are other venues. I would suggest changing the line "It has greatly improved the management of the top three causes of blindness – macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma – thereby preventing vision loss in many patients." If the experts and an extensive literature search can not support this unreferenced claim, I don't believe there is dated. With regard to COI, of potential (likely) authors of the OCT page this is from a 2018 article "(Redacted) receives patent royalties from MIT-owned OCT patents, which are licensed to several companies, and is on the board of directors and has financial interest in NinePoint Medical Incorporated.
(Redacted) has a significant financial interest in Optovue, a company that may have a commercial interest in the results of this research and technology. Financial interests include patent royalty, stock ownership, research grant, and material support" OCTMGH (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your email. I don’t have anymore interest altering current posts. It involves too much time. I did want to post on 1D reflectometry between 1981-1990 (A-scan OCT) which you do not have posted anywhere, but if that stands in the way of being unblocked, I won’t do that either. This area involves none of my work since I didn’t enter the field till 1993. I just feel the contributions should be recognized. OCTMGH (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I think my future will be reading Wikipedia and not editing posts anyone. I probably, will try to the successful investigators in A-scan OCT. But I run into objects I will abandon that too. Thanks again. Great Year, Mark 2601:19C:527E:3010:952:C8FD:C9C6:204 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. As much as read Wikipedia policy, each time I post the editors are nice and point out I violated another policy. Too hard for me so you will be hearing little from me in the future. OCTMGH (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I think my future will be reading Wikipedia and not editing posts anyone. I probably, will try to the successful investigators in A-scan OCT. But I run into objects I will abandon that too. Thanks again. Great Year, Mark 2601:19C:527E:3010:952:C8FD:C9C6:204 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Chaotic Enby}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Chaotic Enby:. Thank you for your explanations and patience. I want to produce appropriate contributions to Wikipedia, but in spite of the reading and YouTube videos, I fall short. I believe something that will make it more notable is discussing how A-scan OCT and ultrasound are used today, rather than just a history. Great week, OCTMGH OCTMGH (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I specially took an area that didn’t involve my work. I entered the field in 1993, the articles are 1990 and prior. I cited none of my work. I was making every attempt to avoid COI by writing about an area that predates my involvement and does not include any work of mine. Best OCTMGH. OCTMGH (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
You have a COI with the topic as a whole; using citations that were published before you entered the field is immaterial. I'd suggest that you read WP:EXPERT. I concur with the blocking admin that you should find radically different topics to edit about. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I did edit your A-scan echo. It said it is currently not used. It is over 50% of the exam. Clearly who wrote that does do or read ECHOs. With regard to A-scan OCT it is posted in so many places I am not concerned about it being read. 10K reads on one site alone. SPIE west started Saturday and I posted it there. I will post about the lack of clinical impact on SPIE today or tomorrow. Best, Mark OCTMGH (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, OCTMGH. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mark Brezinski, 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 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Intracoronary optical coherence tomography—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Intracoronary optical coherence tomography. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Optical coherence tomography. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
