User talk:Amakuru

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Aribert Reimann's 90th birthday, with a hook mentioning his 80ths, the opera played by Oper Frankfurt after he died, see video, and I was there. - Ruta de los Volcanes is among the latest places. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Good to remember Reimann on his birthday, and nice pics of the La Palma as ever... very dramatic hiking location  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Dramatic indeed, trying a trail and missing where it continues, and trying again the other way round and missing it again ;) - I have the usual problem of being late with a RD nom, for Bernard Rands, - can you perhaps take a look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It was too late, I will have to write about his compositions. - Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you sooo much for the rescue to RD! - on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Amakuru! You recently reverted my move of Russian anti-LGBTQ law to Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia for consistency with LGBTQ rights in Russia on the basis that my move contradicts a requested move on the article talk page, but this is actually not the case as the requested move on the article talk page was from Russian anti-LGBT law to Russian anti-LGBTQ law for consistency with the general shift in abbreviation terminology from "LGBT" to "LGBTQ" on Wikipedia. Therefore, my move does not contradict that requested move in any way, and, indeed, ensures further compliance with the consistency in article titles policy. I assume in good faith that this is a simple misunderstanding. Justthefacts (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Justthefacts: and thanks for your note. Per the instructions and WP:RM, controversial move requests should go through a requested move process, and if a move is contested then it can be moved back to the previous stable title, which is what I've done, as I don't agree with the move you made. You mention consistency, but there was consistency before, but I now see that you also moved Georgian anti-LGBTQ law, Kazakh anti-LGBTQ law, Hungarian anti-LGBTQ law and Ghanaian anti-LGBTQ bill at the same time as the Russian one. I have reverted those moves too, so now the consistency is restored. You're welcome to start an RM discussion if you wish these to be moved, but personally I prefer the long-standing titles as they are more concise and clearer to read. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You have misunderstood. The moves are for consistency with the articles titles for LGBTQ rights in Russia, LGBTQ rights in Ghana, LGBTQ rights in Hungary, and LGBTQ rights in Georgia (country). --Justthefacts (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, well that's as may be, but those are different titles from the ones I mention above – I don't think LGBTQ rights is sufficiently similar to Anti-LGBTQ law that it's obvious they should adopt the same naming convention. Given that these titles have been stable in their current syntax for some time I'm still not seeing a pressing reason to change, and the moves are still controversial. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: What I meant was that the moves are consistent with the "in [name of country]" title that is the standard title for all LGBTQ rights articles and also the standard title for any article about legal matters that pertains to laws in legal jurisdictions as laws always affect legal jurisdictions defined by territory. For example, a Canadian in Russia could be prosecuted under the anti-LGBTQ law in Russia, but a Russian in Canada could not be, as the law has a territorial affect, not a nationality affect, and apply to everyone physically present in a particular territory, regardless of nationality, but not to nationals in another territory. As such the title "Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia" makes more sense than "Russian anti-LGBTQ law". Moreover, the title "Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia" in consistent with all articles about both LGBT rights in particular and laws with territorial affect in legal jurisdictions in general. In consideration of the aforestated facts, would you reconsider? Cheers --Justthefacts (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: How are you? Have you considered the titles in light of the facts above? Cheers --Justthefacts (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Justthefacts: I'm fine thanks, hope you are likewise. To be honest I still don't entirely agree - I still think Ghanaian anti-LGBTQ bill and Kazakh anti-LGBTQ law are better titles which describe the situation well. Like we'd say American law, not law in the United States, and you'd still expect it to apply to Canadians if they are in the US. But anyway, it's not really a matter I feel terribly strongly about, so I'm happy to withdraw my objection. I've remade the four moves in question. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: I'm happy to hear that you're fine and you're welcome. I'm likewise and thank you. Actually, American law redirects to law of the United States. I agree with what you say that the law of the United States does "apply to Canadians if they are in the US" as you say and that is actually my point. The anti-LGBTQ law in Russia does apply to Canadians in Russia, because Canadians in Russia are subject to the law of Russia even though they are not Russians. On the other hand, the anti-LGBTQ law in Russia does not apply to Russians in Canada, because Russians in Canada are under the law of Canada. Also, Canadian law redirects to law of Canada and Russian law redirects to law of Russia. I'm happy to hear that you withdraw your objection and that you remade the four moves in question. This cordial discussion between us is an ideal model for how to handle to any disagreements on Wikipedia. I'm happy to have been able to engage so cordially with you on this. Cheers --Justthefacts (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Justthefacts: For what it's worth, I also preferred the long-standing titles, because they are about a specific piece of law, while these new ones imply multiple anti-LGBTQ laws' existence, and they seem to be about law (in general) against LGBTQ in a given country (this would belong in the LGBTQ rights articles). So I'd ask Amakuru to restore the original titles, and Justthefacts to start a discussion (maybe at WT:LGBT) about the moves if you want to continue this debate. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Kovcszaln6: The titles say law, not laws, so there is no necessary implication in that regard. On the other hand, consider the following: a Canadian in Russia can be prosecuted under the anti-LGBTQ law in Russia, but a Russian in Canada could not be, which is why the title "Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia" makes sense over "Russian anti-LGBTQ law", because the law applies to a territory, not a nationality. Regards, --Justthefacts (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Please see the definition of law (1.1.) and of Russian (1.) Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Justthefacts: thanks for your kind words above and I'm glad we were able to enjoy cordial discussions for a time. However, since Kovcszaln6 wishes to challenge, and there are apparently unanswered questions here, I think it's time to sort this out formally through an RM discussion. I've reverted the pages back to their prior titles and would appreciate if you would now follow the instructions at WP:RM (assuming you wish to proceed) and we can also notify the LGBTQ project. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There is plenty of time remaining to meet the goal of 26 new articles representing each letter of the alphabet, to be made in the year 2026. Let me know if you're looking for ideas. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412: yes, thanks for the reminder! Unfortunately real life is kind of getting in the way quite a lot, but we're still not quite a quarter of the way into the year so there's time on our side. I've added in a third out-of-sequence entry for K, so making slow progress!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you getting LLM vibes from the close review nom up at AN and their comments? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)