Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->{{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | now}} - 1704800554) < 13150000 | [[Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices|{{PAGENAME}}]] | }}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> [[User:ThaddeusSholto|ThaddeusSholto]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusSholto|talk]]) 11:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->{{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | now}} - 1704800554) < 13150000 | [[Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices|{{PAGENAME}}]] | }}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> [[User:ThaddeusSholto|ThaddeusSholto]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusSholto|talk]]) 11:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:OCTMGH|OCTMGH]] ([[User talk:OCTMGH#top|talk]]) 13:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
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]
Confusing edit summary
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]
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)