User talk:Plantsurfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit to the page Boeing 787 Dreamliner, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide[edit]

You undid my edit with the summary "the carbon of ALL aerobic organisms, not just plants, is derived from carbon dioxide". Are you saying that I get my carbon from breathing in CO2 and not from food? That's ridiculous. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brian Everlasting: please look at the complete set of edits that Plantsurfer made. It was wrong before to say that carbon dioxide is vital to plant life as if it weren't equally vital to other organisms. You get your carbon from organic compounds made by plants from CO2. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me as if not all (just nearly all) carbon fixation involves carbon dioxide. There are papers reporting bicarbonate ion as an alternative carbon source for photosynthesis, and others reporting the use of methane (which could be of volcanic origin) as a source of carbon (e.g. via the reaction of methane and oxygen to form methanal, which can then by using in further synthesis of organic compounds). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Bicarbonate ion vs. carbon dioxide is chemically really not much a difference, given that CO2 in aqueous solution is in equilibrium with H+ and HCO3. Methane is, I agree, a different matter altogether. However, this wasn't the original issue with the article, which was the implication that CO2 was only vital to plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Electron microscope[edit]

Would you please discuss the specifics of your reversion on Electron microscope on the article talk page. Thanks. -- (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Could you please answer my question about my updates to the transpiration article on the article's talk page? Thank you (Amc1591 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC))