"

I've have, in the travels here on Wikipedia, stumbled across some accounts that had been banned, and in each case, the banning notice advise the banned of the lenght of time the ban would be in effect? If not improper, might I be told?

I edited a hidden note to clean it up and expand it in hopes it would then be better understood and accepted because, in the state it was in, it was jumbled and confusing (obviously, such things are IMO). Also, part of the message was put in a hidden note before the word in the principle article (“are”)  that was sought (by other before me) to be protected and to remain unchanged, and part of the hidden note’s message was put behind the word (“are”) in what is a separate hidden note, a factor I saw as being counter-productive, but concerning which I also had an idea in my mind as to why someone might want a word or two – but few words were best IMO  in the part before the word “are.”

Editor EscapeOrbit (the person I understand is claiming that he was threatened) now takes the position that that the hidden note that was edited was near perfect and doing a good job for the many weeks it had been there.EscapeOrbit, in his talk page comment of 14:42, 8 February 2010, wrote ’’”The facts are that this note has been on this article in one fashion or another for some while. . .I believe it is doing the job intended.”’’ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_(band)&diff;=next&oldid;=342616216  However, the same EscapeOrbit on January 20, 2010, on the talk page for Queen, said ‘’“The ‘were’/’are’ ‘’{please note: this is the same ‘are’ in the principal article mentioned in my paragraph above} ‘’in the lead  and dates in the info box get changed almost daily, and have done so for years.”’’ Please see the full entry in context in the footnotes, where you can see EscapeOrbit is saying this in response to another reader’s encouragement to improve the article so it can be nominated as a Good Article candidate.”I've put in this article for a peer review so that we can analyze what we need to do to improve it. In the next few days I intend to nominate this article as a 'Good Article' candidate, however I feel ‘’’work still needs to be done.’’ I will be making ‘’’major improvements’’’ to the history segment of the article, I feel we also need to develop a Further Reading section and add a lot more citations throughout the article. ‘’’Any contributions, no matter how small, would be sincerely appreciated.’’’ Let's do Freddie proud and get this to Featured Article status. TheStig 
I fear you'll not get very far with a GA nomination while there is still near constant edit warring over whether Queen still exist or not. ‘’’The ""were""/""are"" in the lead and dates in the info box get changed almost daily, and have done so for years.’’’ Is there no where we can get a definite answer that can be cited on this? Escape Orbit   {emphasis added} or the page itself if you prefer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen_(band)#Nationality

The hidden message was, by EscapeOrbit’s own words, having no good effect. We had a written encouragement to improve the article so it could be submitted as a GA candidate (see footnotes). With my edit of 16:43, 7 February 2010,  I included this edit summary: ‘’“expand existing important note with new footnote, both to hopefully have it be more widely accepted, resulting in lesser need to keep reverting these same few words.’’http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&diff;=342506929&oldid;=342389811 The “important note” I addressed in my edit summary is the hidden note concerning the “are.” The purpose, intent, and actual effect was an improvement in the hidden message.

EscapeOrbit’s reason for wanting the language he wants in the hidden note, in spite of the fact that it is not working at all to slow the daily changes to the words in the principle article that we actually both seek to have preserved, is that he personally identifies himself with the phraseology and is on a quest to be personally responsible for having (what are, in his opinion – and interestingly enough I don’t disagree here) British subject matters use British English. He writes about this phrasing, precious to him, that it is ‘’”It is similar to a note that ‘’’I frequently attach to British musical band's articles” ‘’’ ’’ {emphasis added}. He is overly invested in defending the phrasing that by his own statement is not have a positive effect. The problem is that he has posted “frequently” and so, like a beloved child, even though he says it’s not working, he isn’t about to have anyone change his baby.

My changes to the hidden message are those words in bold: “are DO NOT CHANGE THIS TO IS OR WERE. 'Are' is the correct UK ‘’’primary compulsory education reading level’’’