User talk:Peaceful07

Welcome!

Hello, Peaceful07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceful. I've left a comment about behavioral optometry at the article's talk page: Talk:Behavioral_optometry#Learning_related_vision_problems. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have replied to your comment on my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Hi Anthony,[reply]

I left a long note about this subject yesterday. Peaceful07 Peaceful07 (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for this Lou. Let me know how I can be involved.[reply]

Just click the merger discussion and post your thoughts there. Lou Sander (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). It would probably be useful to have these optometrists' names and work as part of the discussion, but I don't think it would be a good idea to recruit them as editors, since they would have obvious conflicts of interest. Also, it would be best if you would make all your comments and questions in the appropriate place at Talk:Vision therapy. It's best if everybody can see everybody else's comments on matters like this. Lou Sander (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Peaceful07/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Fiddle Faddle 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vision therapy

I have some personal anecdotes on this, and you seem to be someone who might appreciate them. Do you read this page very often? Better yet, are you on Skype? Lou Sander (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lou, If possible I would like to contact you outside Wikipedia. I am interested in your anecdotes. Am tired at the moment as have been busy though Saturday would be good for me.Peaceful07 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, I will now be in the US for the NORA 2015 Conference in Denver, Colorado. I do not know where you are in the US perhaps we could get in contact. Given all that I have been through in the last two weeks I am sure that they will allow me talk to the board members and I will talk glowingly about the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you LouPeaceful07 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peaceful07. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Famous _dog (c) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

I don't know whether you will see this, but I just saw old comments you made at Talk:Vision therapy. From discussions at Talk:Bates method, it appears that a better source is needed to explain reasons why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work. If you know of such a source, or possibly could create one and get it published somewhere, that would be helpful. The essential points are pseudomyopia, blur adaptation, pupil miosis (possibly related to sunning), and "flashes of clear vision", which may have multiple causes. Occurrences which may simply be coincidental, such as temporary improvement related to cataracts or diabetes, are also worth noting. Aldous Huxley's case could be re-explored in light of a modern understanding of vision, but I realize that might be too tall of an order. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Hi Belteshazzar, I have found this forum not to my liking so have withdrawn contact. best wishes and peace.[reply]

Thanks for replying, and I understand. I was not asking you to resume participation in Wikipedia. I'm hoping to get someone (maybe you or someone you know?) to write and publish an article somewhat like this one, but also explaining pseudomyopia, pupil miosis, and "flashes" of clear vision. Such a resource could be useful not only as a source on Wikipedia, but also for optometrists whose patients ask about the Bates method. Pseudomyopia would seem particularly relevant to the Bates method, due to Bates' emphasis on relaxation, yet it seems that no valid source has made the connection (this source is rejected because it is not primarily about the Bates method, and doesn't directly connect pseudomyopia to the Bates method). Belteshazzar (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you seem friendly enough, there is nothing written that I am aware of as regards the Bates method or anybody who is likely to write anything about it. Bates in my opinion has some validity though not in the way you are talking about it.

Elwin Marg's report seems to be the best mainstream exploration of the Bates method, but is now very dated. I was encouraged to find the OPO editorial I linked above, but unfortunately it didn't go into much detail. I'd like to see an up-to-date resource which explains why the Bates method might work or might not work in a given case. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very political and in my experience there is not much interest in the profession in improving eyesight via natural methods or research related to it so anything within the peer reviewed literature would be challenging to find.

Do you think there is a limit to how much improvement is possible? Could someone at 20/600 get close to normal just by natural methods, if he knew what he was doing and was dedicated about it? Belteshazzar (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would want to know the uncorrected vision and corrected vision measurements for he or she and take it from there remembering to take each individual case on its merits.

I was just asking what you think is possible. A behavioral optometrist once told me that around two diopters would be the most that one could hope to improve via natural methods. Do you agree with that? Belteshazzar (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Again I would take each individual case on its merits.