User talk:Michaelwall1

JFW | T@lk  20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from own work
On idiopathic intracranial hypertension you quoted a study that you seem to have authored (Brain 1991). Normally one ought to discuss inclusion of the source on the talkpage, where other editors may be able to weigh in to make it all look impartial etc. Still, it seems a reasonable source to cite but it would be best if you supported the relevance of the study with a secondary source; this is a practice encouraged by "reliable sources in medicine". Are you aware of any similar studies performed since then? I noticed a study in Northern Ireland in 42 cases. JFW | T@lk  20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but with all due respect, this is the only extensive prospective study. I have no problem with also quoting the N. Ireland study. Our study took place over nine years, and involved 50 consecutive participants meeting the modified Dandy criteria who were given an extensive questionairre at each visit. They also underwent detailed testing at each visit including two types of perimetry. There really isnt anything else comparable. Would you consider including info from this reference so I dont have to? I can send you the .pdf if you like. Thanks, /mw Michaelwall1 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Making unsourced changes
On the IIH page you made widespread changes, most of which were not supported with references. I have recently spent a fair amount of work on the article, and have ensured that all its content is directly sourced to high-quality reviews. If you wish to expand the article, please ensure you either stay true to the current sources or provide additional ones. JFW | T@lk  22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)