User talk:Gettinglit

Semi synthetic cannabinoids

Hi there. Can you find any RS suitable to be used to make pages for tetrahydrocannabinol propionate (THC-P) and hexahydrocannabinol propionate (HHC-P)? Seems like both of these are being sold also but all I can find so far is vendor sites and forum posts. Seems to be a lot of confusion between those two and the heptyl chain compounds tetrahydrocannabiphorol (THCP) and hexahydrocannabiphorol (HHCP) which are obviously quite different compounds, but even the people selling them don't seem to know which is which in many cases! So really we need separate pages for each of them so people can compare them to each other, but need better sources first. Meodipt (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Not any that would be RS suitable or be enough to cover an article. Here's a patent that mentions its creation for interest. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7186850B2/en

I don't think THC-O-Propionate is around/being sold yet, at least in the USA. Vendors using the term THCP and HHCP should be referring to the Heptyl analogs, that's all over USA. I've seen someone hypothesize it might be what a vendor is calling PHC because their marketing describes it as a prodrug, but different vendors claim PHC to be different cannabinoids with no correlation so I'm not sure. Gettinglit (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the patent, I'll have a look. Yes the unambiguous mentions of THC and HHC propionate (i.e. definitely not the heptyl compounds) were from Europe not USA, I'm not getting the same search results now on my phone as I was this morning on my laptop, but France and Sweden iirc. And yes I can see that post claiming THC propionate is being sold as PHC, I guess that is better than the ambiguity of having two related compounds both called THCP. This alphabet soup of compounds must be very confusing for consumers especially with all the misinformation out there, I saw one vendor site confidently proclaiming that HHCP, HHCP-O-acetate, hexahydrocannabiphorol, hexahydrocannabinol propionate and hexahydrocannabinol cyclopropyl ether are all just different names for the same molecule! Which as a chemist and a lawyer absolutely makes me cringe. Important that we document them all on here to avoid that kind of confusion, but suitable sources are lacking for now at least. Meodipt (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, KVVU-TV, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

List of names for cannabis

Hey Gettinglit, Saw you reverted my citations on the "List of names for cannabis" page, saying they were spam. Could you give me a quick heads-up on what was wrong with them? Just trying to figure out what I did wrong.

Thanks! WeedWho. WeedWho (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You've used a spammy blog marketing website (again) that I'm sure you own made to help advertise hemp products instead of a citation. Not only that but the spammy blog citation is quite literally worthless. I can't use my OnlyFans page that has a vague uncited 1 sentence description of CBN as a citation for a Wikipedia article.

I'm sure you own it because you've vandalized several other Cannabis articles with your same website domain across years according to your contribution history and others had to remove it for spam. There is no normal person on the face of the earth who would ever look at that page and think it's a citation.

Thanks for the laugh this morning though. Gettinglit (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Look, that's not my website (at this point dont care if you belivem or not). It's just a go-to for me, especially when I'm dealing with migraines and want to make edibles. The link has a ton of cannabis terms and slang... helpful for anyone trying to learn about this stuff.

Comparing it to an OnlyFans page? That's just disrespectful... I wasn't trying to "vandalize" anything, just share a resource. If it wasn't right, it got removed, that's how it works.

And honestly, no need for the personal attacks.

Take care. WeedWho (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course I don't believe something so insane. You realize your excuse falls apart when someone uses their eyeballs and opens the spammy page to see that nobody on the planet would find that website helpful.

I'd say you should probably research what a citation is and what it's used for. But we can see by your contrib history you've attempted to add this spammy blog website to multiple articles over the course of years and every single time it gets removed for the same reason for being spam and not a citation.

You're right OnlyFans at least has quality content a living human will look at for more than 30 seconds and doesn't need to vandalize wikipedia articles to artificially boost their SEO and serve up more expensive ads to bots visting. I should'nt have disrespected OnlyFans like that by comparing it to such a trash website.

What's personal if it's not your site? You vandalizing wikipedia is a personal attack on all of us who use it. Gettinglit (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

First off, you're talking to me, not to the "website owner." So, yeah, it's personal. And even if you were talking to the website's creator, I'd still argue that the effort someone puts into their work deserves a degree of respect, regardless of your personal opinion on its quality.

You call my citations "spammy"... Okay, let's look at that... i can see many "citations" to sources like "theweedblog" or "lookyweed", what about that? To me, that seems far more... well, let's just say "less academically rigorous" than what I provided.

Look, maybe you're right. Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe my judgment is off. But here's the thing: I'm a real person, and I try to be respectful. I'm not some bot churning out garbage. I'm trying to contribute, even if I'm clearly failing in your eyes.

I'm trying to add information, and if it's not up to your standards, then that's something we can discuss reasonably, without the hyperbole. WeedWho (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

So then it's quite literally not personal? If you don't own the website you've been trying to apply as citations to multiple claims across several Cannabis articles since 2022 despite people removing them saying it's spam then idk what's so personal.

Lol who are you trying to gas light over here? "Less academically rigorous" than what you provided? Did you forget I actually bothered to check your citation and that other people can do the same to see what you've just said is clear evidence you're acting in bad faith, it's not just on par with other spam blog pages it's possibly worse because the page is the laziest copy and paste of a signgle 1 sentence a AI bot generated. At least other spam blogs try to pretend a human is reading it for longer than 30 seconds.

Seems like it's not up to anyones standards which is why it was removed everytime you've tried to add it to articles over the course of several years.

Please do post on the talk page there so we can discuss your continued vandalism and your gas lighting can be called out and documented for all to see. Here on Wikipedia people actually check citations. It's not tiktok. Gas lighting isn't going to work. They'll see your spammy blog citation is just as nonsense SEO boost attemps as the others and go "well obviously that guy's acting in bad faith" by attempting to gas light calling other spam blogs "Less academically rigorous" than your spam blog with no citations, not even any real info. Like it's amazing you have the courage to respond with such nonsense. Even more amazing if you think Wikipedia isn't full of people who keep an eye out for this which is why your previous attempts didn't work. Gettinglit (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Δ-8-Tetrahydrocannabinol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schedule I. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)