`  ::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’’’ term ‘’’ {attempted footnote reference starts here} I hope it is acceptable to expand this note that I agree does serve a purpose here; the expansion being because at University level (grade level 9 UK  equivalent to American grade 15 (college junior and up)), in Britain we do learn a more technical (worldly?) style that would treat a proper name such as this as a singular noun for purpose of common speaker predicate verb conjugation {attempted footnote reference ends here}’’’ ‘’{Note: unfortunately, it seems, per another editor, that there can be no footnote to a hidden note, so this part that I would have preferred be in a footnote was in the body of the hidden message}’’ and Brian and Roger still perform together, ‘’’so the band in present tense verbiage exists at the time that these words are read.’’’  ::Editor Radiopathy then edited my edit by almost entirely reverting it, but adding a reference.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&diff;=prev&oldid;=342515595 I restore most of what was there before, but keeping the new material (a reference).http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&diff;=next&oldid;=342515595   ::Editor Fred the Oyster then corrected spelling in my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&diff;=next&oldid;=342584622  ::Editor EscapeOrbit then deleted the previously existing request to editors to keep the present tense use of the verb “are,” (instead of “were”) and the reasons therefore, plus what I had restored concerning use of the plural “are,” and Editor Fred Oyster’s improvement of my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&diff;=next&oldid;=342592448   ::Since EscapeOrbit wished so much deleted, my writing being the larger part of his latest deletion , and Fred the Oyster had not deleted, but rather improved the edit, EscapeOrbit  put in his in his edit summary “This article is not the place to pander to disruptive pedantry.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&diff;=next&oldid;=342592448  I trust you are familiar with the nature of this strong ‘’’personal insult’’’ coming from EscapeOrbit, and leveled at me by telling Fred the Oyster not to pander to my pedantry.   ::I found this to be rather strong and inappropriate language. In my edit restoring the improvements to the language that EscapeOrbit takes credit for, but that he himself said wasn’t working (saying that the “are” word has been changed almost daily for the many weeks since his edit,  and also at the same rate for years before), I added this edit summary: ‘’“your rv(s) was heavy-handed & unwarranted; use of ``pedantry`` is misplaced, and if meant, likely to get you an improper punch in the nose by persons less civilized than present company”’’  ::So, that is where, I think I set forth fairly, we are coming from. I took offense at the insult by EscapeOrbit. I still think that his insult was misplaced. I still think his edits and manner are heavy-handed and unwarranted, and if you read some of his comments to varied people on the Queen talk page, he is condescending and insulting. I still think that if he goes about using such terms in person with people who are less civil with each other than we hopefully all strive to be here on Wikipedia (or at least in our better moments should be so striving), he will indeed likely to get  an improper punch in the nose. I never threatened him. I still have not. I’m here on Wikipedia, I’m present company. I called such a punch iImproper and I put it in bold, and I excluded myself from the uncivilized people would might so act. It was not, and is not, a veiled threat that any sane person, who is not psychotically overreacting, and I am not suggesting such for him in this writing, would take as a threat.   ::It is, however, the way that someone, trying desperately to protect his precious and beloved child – or phase that he uses so frequently that he feels personally identified with it, so much so that he cannot bare to have it altered, even though it is not working, might claim makes him feel threatened, in order to get others to help attack and control anyone threatening to touch his child.`