User talk:OCTMGH

November 2023

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)

Hi, Sorry I don't completely understand. Can you explain what you mean or did I do something wrong? Was it the 'in progress'

Best OCTMGH (talk) 23:10, 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)

WP:BRD explained

Generally, if you've made a bold change to an article, such as adding an entire section on the theory of optical coherence tomography to the article about intracoronary optical coherence tomography, and then that change is reverted, your next step is supposed to be to discuss the matter (see WP:BRD). I've opened the required discussion; please join at Talk:Intracoronary optical coherence tomography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Great day,

Mark OCTMGH (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I see no evidence that you have tried to edit any article other than intracoronary optical coherence tomography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

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).

Best,

Mark OCTMGH (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: Your username implies that you that you have a conflict of interest regarding this topic; you should read the related Wikipedia guidelines before proceeding to edit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

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.

Great week,

Mark OCTMGH (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)