Open main menu

Body cavityEdit

Hi Tom - hope all is well, you don't seem to have been around much lately. Just thought I would mention the page body cavity something seems amiss (to me) at first it states that body cavity refers to any fluid-filled space in an animal and goes on to include human body cavities that are not filled with fluid such as the cranial cavity. Am I missing something here? The fluid containing cavities such as the pleural cavity, are not mentioned. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz, unfortunately (from a Wikipedia point of view) I've been on an intense two year training program that is pretty all absorbing. I agree the body cavity page is strange and also that it is weirdly organised. I might post on WP anatomy and we can talk there about it. With regards to the definition - technically the cranial cavity is fluid filled (with cerebrospinal fluid) but frankly the lay definition of a body cavity is, surely, a cavity that is in the body. It just happens that most are fluid filled and therefore some people describe them like that. I have however heard the orbital cavity described as one which is surely an exception and clearly it is not completely filled with fluid anteriorly. Hope everything is going well on your side! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Tom I went ahead and did some editing without noticing that you had already done some - I hope I didn't affect anything you did - I did make it more 'human body' oriented but of course if that's not wanted feel free to change - apologies again for possibly giving you more work.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Iztwoz actually these aren't so bad. I linked the set to the relevant non cavity articles (eg "Thorax" to "Thoracic cavity") and left it at that. The cavity articles are in surprisingly good form. --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello Tom have just made some edits on Abdomen page - is the table really necessary? and should I ask such things here on on article talk page? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iztwoz no strong feeling here. Tried to neaten some things up and didn't really see the point of the bullet points there; a table is a little easier I think but wouldn't object if it were removed completely. --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Unanswered Peer Review RequestsEdit

PR icon.png Hello Tom (LT), This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).

Natural sciences and mathematics
Article Date Added
Paweł Urban (Peer Review) 2019-07-28
1900 Galveston hurricane (Peer Review) 2019-07-26
Island of stability (Peer Review) 2019-07-04
Cactus wren (Peer Review) 2019-06-22
Onychopterella (Peer Review) 2019-04-23

You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC pointersEdit

Thank you for your recommendations on drafts and for your interest in becoming more involved at Articles for Creation.

Participants listEdit

The first hurdle is getting your name on the list of participants. With your experience, you should be a shoe-in and a very welcome addition to our corps, but because AfC has had problems in the past there's a somewhat convoluted process to follow:

  1. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.
  2. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, click "add request", and sketch out in a sentence or two what you would like to do.


  • Click Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to the "Editing" section and ensure the box for "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" is checked. Then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". This will add a "Review" tool to the "More" drop down at the top of the page. It will only be visible when the current page is in the draft or user space. It will only work correctly after your name has been added to the participants list. There have been recent reports of a serious bug when using the tool with Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge, so I hope you're using another browser. See WP:AFCH for more information about the tool.
  • A vital step in the reviewing instructions is to check for copyright violations. The description in the instructions of how to do this is medieval. In practice reviewers use a tool. If you add the line importScript('User:The Earwig/copyvios.js'); to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Copyvio check" tool in the left-hand panel. Click it as the first step in reviewing every draft. It will run Earwig's Copyvio Detector on the current page.
  • If you encounter a copyright violation, then you may have to mark some revisions for deletion. You don't have to use a tool, but most reviewers find it easier. If you add the line importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js'); to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Request CV revdel" link in the "More" drop down at the top of the page.
  • One way to help reviewers find drafts they want to review is to tag drafts with WikiProject templates. The draft will then appear in the project's article alerts (if that's what drew you to AfC, I'd be interested in hearing it). This can be done manually, but another script makes it quicker. If you add the line importScript('User:APerson/draft-sorter.js'); to User:Tom (LT)/common.js, you'll get a "Sort (draft)" link in the "More" drop down at the top of the page.
  • Twinkle is handy for requesting speedy deletion or taking a draft to MfD. It looks like you're already a user

--Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Thanks @Worldbruce I appreciate your message and instructions. I've followed them (except for adding request revdel as I don't feel confident using that yet). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Tom, I'd changed the image "File:1303 Human Neuroaxis.jpg" on Commons (after a request at the Teahouse) before I realised that it was from your own text book. Apologies for any offence that I might have caused. It was not intended. I'm happy for you to delete my version which has the wrong font. Thank you for all your expert contributions to Wikipedia. Dbfirs 08:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all. There must be some mistake as I haven't released any books about anatomy :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my misunderstanding based on "own work". I guess someone uploaded it from OpenStax CNX which has the appropriate licence, but it wasn't you. Sorry to have bothered you. My "investigations" were defective. Dbfirs 07:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Tom (LT)".