Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What draft submission? OCTMGH (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question was submitted prior to June 2020 and, after having been abandoned, deleted in July 2021. The author Mcm91 has not made any other edits, so it is unlikely you'll get any help from them. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed all questions including not knowing you were an editor. I would suggest changing the keywords back to what I placed to attract the desired audience. OCTMGH (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OCTMGH: I have no idea what you're talking about. We have discussed on your user talk page about your confusion about me being an editor (I am, and so are you, but I have no more authority to edit here than you, just more experience). But I cannot answer your concern about "keywords" because I don't know what you mean. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel bad thinking you were a troller just deleting what I wrote (there are people in my field who would do that). I would have been more respectful knowing you were an editor. I am new to editing and need to read. I have seen this talk for years realizing it needed serious work, particularly getting up to date and talking about cardiologists in particular want to know. I will be more careful figuring out who I am talking to and learning more about wikipedia. I have definitely learned to do a good job requires a lot of work. Thank you for your help and expertise. OCTMGH (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent additions
Over the past several days, this article has been expanded to include a) a Theory section; and b) a section about transparent eye tissue. Neither of these sections are needed in this article. The "transparent eye tissue" section is not relevant to the current article, as the current article deals with OCT usage within the field of cardiology, not ophthalmology. The material presented in the transparent eye tissue section relates largely to the historic development of the OCT technology, which is covered sufficiently at the optical coherence tomography article. The "Theory" section is similarly redundant, as that material is also covered sufficiently at the optical coherence tomography article. After I had removed these sections, OCTMGH chose to restore them, without explanation or discussion (in violation of WP:BRD). I invite OCTMGH (or any other user) to discuss the matter here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A question about sources
In this edit, OCTMGH has added a collection of "[a]djuvant OCT techniques which have been demonstrated in vitro but yet to be applied by clinicians or in clinical trials." Each of the subsequent techniques is cited with a single paper that, in all cases, represent primary research (i.e. experimentation performed by a single team, with no evidence of repeatability by other teams). By definition, such research is not considered a medically reliable source, so it is unclear whether such sources should be allowed with this article. However, no medical claims are being made by the paragraph, only reports of further research. So, my question: should such reports of primary research be allowed, or should we wait until such results have been replicated by other teams and reported on in a reliable research survey article instead? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I am very careful about making claims or more critically (fraud or medicare fraud) that can not substantiated. That is why on the other OCT page I removed the unreferenced statement that OCT in ophthalmology has lead to improved vision, where no such data exists (but my attempt to avoid a problem was deleted). I know the consequences of making false medical claims. The section I wrote just says the basic science work was done and makes no mention of the results or makes any claims. So I personally believe it is fine and informative. However, you do this for a living so I will defer to your expertise. OCTMGH (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Good morning. Before posting this, I wanted to find out if I could include this. It provides external confirmation of information in the post. This is from MIT Tech July 1997. According to their web site, I can reproduce it as long as it is properly sited and stated that it can not be reproduced.
Great morning, Mark OCTMGH (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OCTMGH: That is a copyrighted image that cannot be used at Wikipedia. The conditions you have mentioned ("as long as it is properly sited [sic] and stated that it cannot be reproduced") are not compatible with Wikipedias CC BY-SA 4.0 License. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
