Talk:Cannabigerol

message: Change: |doi=10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00515.x. to |doi=10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00515.x (remove trailing period)
Reason: Correct DOI error. User-duck (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of it, having seen the article listed in CS1 errors: DOI. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 7 May 2019 

message: Does anyone know how to pronounce cannabigerol? Which syllable carries the primary stress? Which syllables are unstressed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes390 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of cannabigerol 

message: Recently, a user named Zefr made very disrespectful comments about a respect journal: on this talk page, on the comments after editing and on my talk page. The user referred to this journal as an “inadequate source”, a “low-quality journal”, and “the low end of acceptable”.
The journal name is Acta Pharmaceutica, and it is published by the Croatian Pharmaceutical Society. After I tried to convince the user Zefr about the achievements of this journal, reaching an impact factor higher than 3, and belonging to the second quartile of the journals about Pharmaceutical Science; the user Zefr decided to make a personal accusation and wrote the following:
“You seem excessively defensive of the Acta Pharm source - If you have a conflict of interest by being a member of the lab group publishing the article, or any other affiliation with that source, you are expected to declare the WP:COI on your talk page.”
I am not a Croatian, but I am sure that I would feel offended if I were one of the 4 million Croatians who can read Wikipedia. I did not write the article, but I would feel offended if I were one of the many scientists who try to do research despite (1) the difficulties to find funding and (2) the difficulties to do legal research about cannabis.
Therefore, I kindly ask you: Before disqualifying an article, please take into consideration that you are expressing yourself about people. So, please be understanding and respectful. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added some information on the rodent study on CBG and blood pressure, and it was deleted even though I provided the reference (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124753/).  I clearly described that the study was in rodents, and not humans, but my edit was deleted because it describes evidence that is not in humans.  I believe because I clarified that it was an animal study, the readership should have the right to decide how to use the information.  I actually described why the study was flawed, since no receptor binding was measured.  And yet, it was still deleted by Zefr.  I no longer have interest in contributing to Wikipedia.  After 11 years of higher education (Pharm.D., Ph.D.), 15 years of being a professor of pharmacology and toxicology, and over 20 peer-reviewed articles,  one person has the power to delete this factual information because of a personal preference? Vanwa71 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being respectful with scientists 

message: I reversed the second deletion of my edit, since I clearly state that it was in animal studies, and I mention that evidence in humans is lacking.
I adhered to the following guidelines exactly:
"In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader." Vanwa71 (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This revert is justified because the content is pure speculation from lab research and synthesizes an interpretation from medications; see WP:SYNTH. The encyclopedia is written for the general user, not other scientists. See WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8 and writing medical content for the wrong audience. Zefr (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Animal Studies