User talk:Austex/Archive 1

Beginning of Archives 7/01/2010

Page cleaned 6/25 to "assume good faith"

• Intervening comments have been removed by user to be polite and assume good faith, and the response by Sarah has been left below in its entirety. Dmartinaus (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Deskana|(talk)]] 09:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Info for User:Milowent /Donald G. Martin

Thank you for hosting the page and for your assistance. I have established a web page 1) to provide "full text" of all cited articles (such as the Austin American-Statesman) where only headlines are available in a un-paid archive search. It takes a paid subscription to get full text so I doubt anyone has read the actual articles themselves. 2) There is additionally a page of 28 references that were not previously used. 3) And finally there are several new pages of "profile" articles -- third-party published profiles -- that were not used in the original article for some reason and which might shed light on the notability issue. This part is still under construction as I am working to get back issues from various archives. The web site for all this material is: http://wikipedia-article-verification.webs.com/ Thank you. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the referenced materials on the web site also contains five individual "profile" articles on the subject, all from independent third-party published sources, and NONE of which were used in the original article by the original author for some unknown reason. Dmartinaus (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Milowent, I also couldn't help but notice your comment on another page, however, that said "Martin is notable at best." Before you make up your mind about a notable determination, I hope you will look at the substantial NEW material above, especially the profiles. I don't know why they were never included by the original article author, but I beleive that they constitute legitimate outside third-party published articles about Martin (as opposed to some articles just quoting Martin).

FULL DISCLOSURE: I (User:Damartinaus) am Don Martin, subject of the article. I have no other editing accounts, just this ONE and only one accout, and no one affiliated with me is any longer editing in any way, and there is no one in particular supporting me at my request. I would, however, like an opportunity to help clean up the article so that there are no POV issues, that notability is clearly establshed, and there is no hint of advertising; then to have several editors (or a peer review) to review the article in depth prior to re-submission....if re-submitted at all. Thanks! (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Case for Notability re Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)

Discussion re notability -- for the record:

Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)

• Was a co-founder of an early start-up mainframe dial-up computer system in 1976 (before PC's) for tracking legislation and votes in the Texas Legislature. It was later expanded to Washington DC, to cover the US Congress and then sold to The Washington Post in 1980;
• Was Publisher and Editor of the weekly "Texas Government Newsletter" and biennial "A Voter's Guide to the Texas Legislature;"
• Developed real estate including townhomes, office, office condos and land development in Austin prior to starting his public affairs business;
• In 1989 formed Don Martin Public Affairs in Austin, Texas to consult on public affairs, public relations, issues management, crisis communications, and legal / litigation PR for local, regional, state and NATIONAL clients. (The business is currently 21 years old).
• Managed Bruce Todd's successful campaign for Austin mayor in 1991 and was general consultant for his 1994 re-election, chaired the campaign for the Austin Bergstrom International Airport referendum to create Austin's first international airport, was campaign manager for the Round Rock Express stadium referendum, and ran other campaigns such as the Westbank Library bond campaign, and a half-cent sales tax for transportation in Round Rock, Texas;
• While running a full-time public affairs business, Martin with his 22-year business partner Bill Smalling (1952-2009) co-developed several significant land development projects including San Gabriel Village in Georgetown, Texas and the 328-acre master-planned, mixed use La Frontera commercial center in Round Rock, Texas with approximately 1 million s.f. of retail as well as offices and urban-density apartments. The project was one of Austin area's first "New Urbanism" projects for live-work-shop lifestyles;
• In 2009 Martin wrote a local history book featuring Austin history as told through vintage Austin area postcards from the 1890's to 1930's (published by Arcadia Publishing).

Re WP:COI see disclosure statement above in the previous archive item. Austex • Talk 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Need someone to review and "possibly" add to Round Rock, Texas page

Disclosure: I have a CIO conflict of interest in adding this language because of my personal involvement with La Frontera. I originally wrote a complete article on La Frontera but it was "Speedy Deleted" due to my personal CIO with the project and concers about advertisement. FYI - I have otherwise been editing on the Round Rock, Texas page, among others, and it needs quite a bit more information on the business and economy section. It might be useful to add this under that section of the Round Rock page. But it first needs to be reviewed, vetted and then added by someone else entirely independent of me:

A recently completed (2008) commercial development for Round Rock is La Frontera, a 328-acre master-planned, mixed use commercial development located in Round Rock, Texas at the border of Austin and Round Rock. The project includes Williamson County's only full-service hotel (Marriott), the headquaters of Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp, urban-density apartments, and the commercial portion of the project will exceed 5 million s.f. at buildout. The project currently has approximately 950,000 s.f. of retail, making it the second largest outdoor commerical project in the Austin - Round Rock Metro area.

The paragraph looked good to me, so I pasted it into the Round Rock article. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I deleted theold inactive peer review per your request - if you change your mind, I am an admin and can restore it if requested. Thanks for the heads up (WP:PROD takes 7 days normally, so I just deleted it under WP:CSD#G6 although WP:CSD#G8 would also apply here). Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Dmartinaus • Talk 02:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I also deleted the request for mediation, but noted in the deletion summary that I will restore it if any of the involved editors request it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Additional Materials, References, and Profile Articles:

I have established a web page 1) to provide "full text" of all cited articles (such as the Austin American-Statesman where only headlines are available in a un-paid archive search.) It takes a paid subscription to get full text so I doubt anyone has read the actual articles themselves. 2) There is additionally a page of 28 references that were not previously used. 3) And finally there are several new pages of "profile" articles -- third-party published profiles -- that were not used in the original article for some reason and which might shed light on the notability issue. The web site for this material is: http://wikipedia-article-verification.webs.com/ Thank you.

Follow up to Sarah's Comments

• FYI the article was assigned to User:Milowent, whom I do not know, by an Admin. He can do what he choses with the article, or simply leave it for now on his archive.Dmartinaus (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• After reading through a great number of Wikipedia policies, including [CIO], [AUTO] and others it is VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY that I will seek I WILL NOT SEEK to resurrect the Donald G. Martin article, or the La Fronter article, now or in the future. In response to your comments above, the original article WAS written by some other editor, and while I added to it and defended the heck out of it against some terrible inaccuracies (as you say "protect (myself) from false information"), that is quite different from wanting to kill the article, so no I am not necessarily happy that it is gone. I admit I'd have loved to have seen the article go forward. But I will not be trying to "ram an article about (myself) into Wikipedia" or "force my way into wikipedia." If picked up in the future by some editor independent of me, then so be it. If not, then so be it too. Dmartinaus (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I do think it is/was prudent to offer the information about references even if it goes nowhere. You raised the issue as to whether or not there were third-party independent articles written ABOUT me and indicated that there were none (rather than mostly articles quoting me). Six of these have been added to the web site. I do not know why they were not included by the original editor other than perhaps they had not been reserched. Dmartinaus (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• At some point I would like to consider a careful re-write of the La Frontera article to remove advertisement and submit it in advance for consensus, peer review and editor comments, etc and not to try and "ram it into Wikipedia," but rather submit it in a constructive way, open for review well in advance, and created in the Sandbox and not moved to a main page, in a show of good faith. I think it has merit, and it was deleted without an Afd or discussion (which was of course your right). If you would be willing to assist and offer constructive criticism I would welcome that very much. I may seek to find a third-party editor from within Wikipedia who will take it from here instead of my re-writing it, if you have suggestions. Dmartinaus (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bye until after the block. (Don Martin) Dmartinaus (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Don, you have just as much a COI with regard to the La Frontera project as you do your own biography. The COI guideline does not just cover biographies, but any and all subjects with which an editor has a close association, including their business, their families, friends, colleagues, employers/employees, their work, projects they're associated with etc. I am willing to give you another chance here, which is why this account isn't indefinitely blocked like the others, but you need to stop focusing on articles which relate to yourself and your business interests. If these subjects are notable, uninvolved, uninvested, experienced editors will end up writing articles of their own accord, so please leave it up to them to determine in due course. Between the disputes over the articles, their contents, the socks, the AFD, DRV, DR, etc, far too much time has been wasted as a result of your editing and I'm not willing to allow this to continue so you really need to accept and edit within the policies and guidelines and if you're unwilling to do that, I am going to request a community ban against you. I'd really rather not do that - as I've said, you seem like a thoroughly likable fellow and I'm sure you could make useful contributions to articles which are not related to yourself, but I'm simply unwilling to allow this to continue festering. Please comply with the COI guideline and refrain from creating further articles, or otherwise editing content, relating to you, your business, your business interests, projects, colleagues, and other subjects with which you have a close association. If you are honestly only interested in promoting these subjects, please find a more appropriate place to do this, such as your own website, a blog or one of the many other wiki-based websites which welcome such contributions. Sarah 02:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I totally understand. I have not edited aything or suggested edits onthis page since I told you I wouldn't on June 25. Also, as I stated above it is VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY that I would EVER pursue re-creating the Don Martin article again. Either myself or through anyone known to me. Undoubtedly your response was to my comment about La Frontera so let me say without reservation that the same is true now for La Frontera after reading it again and re-reading CIO guidelines. So I think you can take that as a reliable sign that I WILL NOT TRY TO RESSURECT EITHER OF THE TWO ARTICLES, or edit either of them even if someone does ressurect them in any form or fashion. In other words, I HAVE STOPPED. Also, I have not made any comments since the one above re a more refined list re notability made BEFORE I said I would go dark (except to make tiny minor edits to the above articles SOLELY so that they would not automatically archived in 7 days), that's all. I also won't edit any articles about friends, colleagues or businesses I am associated with. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• While I absolutely won't pursue the Don Martin article myself, I have a question: Is it appropriate for someone independent to take a look sometime and judge it for themsleves? . . . that is, unless you strongly object. Since the time it was originally written a) my edits were reverted, b) and I've made a one-time case above re notability above. c) Further, you noted that it had no articles that were "profile pieces" on me apart from articles that quote me. There are actually SIX existing profile articles that were never used by the original article author,for some reason, and which for ease of access I have posted originals on my web site. (The ABJ profiles, for example, are not kept in their archives). So is there a procedure, not involving me, perhaps through you or Willowent who is hosting the site, for someone OTHER THAN ME to INDEPENDENTLY invite other editors or a peer review to look at the article along with the new paragraph above and the profile articles to see if any of them want to pick it up or not. EITHER WAY I'll leave it alone. It's just that I think there is even more to it now than before. Milownet's comments on hosting the Don Martin article is that his purpose is to 0. maintain watch over article. 1. determine what subject is notable for 2. determine strength of sources 3. pare down to possibly usable article.--Milowent (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) So isn't it perhaps approprpriate for you to at least to alert him to my talk page for the additional information in his making such a determination? OK. There, I've said all I will say on the subject and I will leave it alone from here....

• By the way, the article website serves now other purposes than just Wikipedia for me now as a sort of collection of articles for posterity, and to link full text articles to my other Wiki-like site (see below). They are there SOLELY as resource if someone in the future, including but not limited to someone at Wikipedia, needs them. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Other wiki site - To lessen my personal issues re Wikipedia, as you have suggested, I have already recently posted similar articles on Don Martin and La Frontera on one of the other Wiki sites that specialies in biographies and business articles for those who are not "notable" enough for Wikipedia. I hope that others editors on Wikipedia will leave them alone and not start a battle all over again. They are already somewhat "protected" against outside edits, but not completely. Dmartinaus (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Let me know if any of the above is unclear or not sufficient. This is a long response, much too long, but I hope that it directly addresses all of your concerns and comments. I am looking forward to working to "redeem" myself as an editor and to put all this in the past. Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• PS re a total ban -- Your discussion re a ban, however, seems entirely premature (to jump from two week block to a total ban) when I am sitting here staying competley silent other than this response to you. That would seem terribly harsh and unusual to me. Wouldn't it seem that way to you? (Especially when 19 got no block of any length for the volumes and volumes of ugly attacks he made on me and others) Dmartinaus (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• See strike-out above re La Frontera article, and adding to the otherwise ambiguous language re the Don Martin site. Dmartinaus (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Don. Im just stopping by to say hello. Doesnt your block expire today? Try not to let one user define your whole experience here. Sarah is just one person among literally millions. Wiki is all about consensus, not fairness. Do what you think is right with the articles, gauging what is likely to be acceptable or not by the community. Consensus may align with Sarah or it may align with you, and you have to be ok with either outcome. I'm going to look at the La Frontera material, and if something can be made of it I'll reintroduce it. If not, thats just the way it goes, right? Even if it makes its way back, expect it to be nommed for AfD and have your policy arguments ready if you intend to defend it. Be ok with whatever the outcome is because otherwise you will continue to feel abused and tormented here. I hope you return and have a more enjoyable experience. Minor4th • talk 17:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah

Sarah: Perhaps I explained it wrong, or perhaps you had a different outcome in mind. I was asking if you might please delete the reference to User:Dmartinaus on the two or three user pages. They would all still say they are "blocked indef due to SPI," but leaving out "Dmartinaus" helps me get off to a fresh start. If you are ammenable to that. I know it's a lot to ask, but this was how it was originally on at least one of the user pages to begin with before I brought it up. You then changed them all to referencing "Dmartinaus" Thanks for considering it. Dmartinaus • Talk

I've courtesy blanked the sockpuppet investigations case[1]. This is a more acceptable solution to us than changing the content of the case afterwards, and is probably preferable to you as well. The case remains available in the page history, and that's non-negotiable I'm afraid. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you remembered that this is an encyclopedia and did some contributing. So far we've been very accommodating but you've not done much in return (zero article edits). --Deskana (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've only been unblocked ONE day, and have been spending the first day cleaning up, creating a signature, adding headers on my user and talkpage, getting back in touch (and apologizing) to certain uers, etc. I think that is pretty much wrapped up now, but was all pretty important to me for getting a fresh start. Thanks for your assistance. Dmartinaus • Talk 03:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're blocked and this really isn't what you should be doing during the block. The admin who told you could edit this page was just an admin responding to the unblock template and I highly doubt that he understood the full background and intended for you to be using this page in the way that you are. We really only started allowing blocked editors to edit their talk pages so that they could have the opportunity to appeal blocks, not so they could continue through the block with their problematic behaviour, only with it contained to their talk page. You were blocked for your behaviour surrounding this article and you appear to have spent the entire period since the block using this page as a staging ground for preparing what you're going to do as soon as the block expires. No offense - you seem like a thoroughly likable fellow and this isn't remotely personal - but I'm reaching the opinion that we're going to need to ban you. If you want to draft an article, please consider doing so on your computer, not on Wikipedia, but it really would be best if you complied with the AUTO and COI guidelines and simply didn't draft any articles or any arguments requesting an article at all and just left the future up to this community. Otherwise I'm going to have to turn off your ability to edit this page for the rest of the block. Since you were blocked, you've made 97 edits to this page and the only thing the block seems to have done is contain your editing to one page, but it certainly hasn't seemed to have made any impression on you or your approach to Wikipedia. And in fact, it's shed more light on this whole scenario. You've maintained that you were only here to protect your reputation from the false information in the article. Well, Wikipedia no longer has an article - it has been through AFD and DRV and the deletion has been upheld. If that was your true purpose in being here, you should be done, not here every day making dozens of edits to this page, preparing for your next step in attempting to ram an article about yourself into Wikipedia. This whole approach is something that I think would be extremely troubling to admins if a ban discussion was started. I am prepared to initiate a discussion with administrators but I'd much prefer it if we didn't have to do that since you are a named, real and living person and if you instead simply agreed to stop and went away for the rest of the period of your block. Of course, what you do when that block expires is going to be the next issue and it really would be better if you simply abandoned this mission and waited until an experienced editor completely independent, unknown and uninvolved with you, believed you to be notable and made moves to initiate a new article. I realise you are a PR specialist, but I really can't see how being on Wikipedia every day, trying to force your way in, ending up blocked as a result, is going to do anything remotely positive for you. As I've said before, I really do hope you appreciate how public this venue is and the fact Wikipedia pages are highly ranked on search engine results, so future clients, friends, family, etc will be able to see what you've been doing here and the fact that you've been on such a mission to write about yourself here, despite the very clear way we have explained the Autobiography and Conflict of Interest guidelines to you. A number of people have spent considerable time very patiently attempting to give you this information and to explain how inappropriate it is for you to be writing material about yourself, editing your own article, arguing for it, etc. Yet here we are with you spending the period of the block drafting autobiographical material and other material you're obviously intending to use to try to force us to accept another article. I can't see how you can possibly think the community is going to look favourably on any of this or how it's appropriate under the AUTO and COI rules. Please leave any decisions about future articles entirely in the hands of this community. Please take the rest of the block period off so we don't have to shut down this page. Sarah 03:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly echo Sarah's comments. You would be very wise to take them to heart. --Deskana

Regarding Signature

Hello. I noticed that you created the page User:Dmartinaus/Sig. Please be aware that using templates in signatures is not allowed. This is stated both on the preferences page ("Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature.") and in the signatures guideline. If you are using this page in your signature, please remove it and insert the code from the template directly into the signature box on your preferences page. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I created it yesterday by simply copying the instructions from another user and changed colors. I have now taken my signature off the Sig page and added it to my preferences instead. I believe an Admin is necessary to actually delete the Sig page itself, so please feel free to delete it. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You're free to keep the page as a backup for your signature code, if you wish. If you still wish to have the page deleted, you can place {{db-self}} on the top of the page and someone will be along to delete it. --Deskana (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep it for saving a copy of the back-up, just in case. Thanks. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Re-archived from talkpage)

Also, to be completely upfront and open about it, as part of writing the business page for Round Rock, I made a suggestion about adding a snippet of info about a certain project. I am going to post for you below the way I handeled it (copied from my archive) which is, I beleieve, exactly how you told me to handle it, to put any such potetnial edit out there for others to review, and NOT to make ANY edits myself: Dmartinaus • Talk 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Even User:Giftiger wunsch who was the lead on this discussion indicated he had no problem with deleting it as it was inconsequential. But he is not an Admin and could not delete it. Thanks for your help. Dmartinaus • Talk 13:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX

There is no point creating a page with the NOINDEX keyword on it. I'm not sure why you did this. Either way, I deleted the pages, as they serve no purpose. --Deskana (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Just trying to be extra cautious since they come up early in Wikipedia searches and the two in question (above) are virtualy incomprehensible to anyone else -- such as suggested peer review edits to an on-existant page. Google suggested it. Not sure if they serve an actual purpose or not. So why not? But if you say so, that's fine with me. Dmartinaus • Talk 17:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually it is not a Google command at all, it is a WIKIPEDIA COMMAND, listed under "Template:NOINDEX" which says: "The template {{NOINDEX}} is deprecated. Please use __NOINDEX__, instead. This template adds__NOINDEX__, which may remove the page from some search engines..." . Question: So why not use it on the off chance that it works on orphaned pages??? Especially because it is the TITLE that still get's indexed, and though the page has been deleted the title still remains. Dmartinaus • Talk 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you seem rather curt and know-it-all with me about "not sure why you did this." I've been nothing but polite and respectful of you at all times. And I will continue to do so.Dmartinaus • Talk 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can be quite terse at times. Don't take it personally, I'm just very to the point. And with regards to Google and Wikipedia searches, the pages will disappear from them eventually if they stay deleted. There's a delay in them being removed, but it'll get removed eventually. By recreating them with the keyword on you do nothing but draw attention to them, which makes it somewhat self-defeating. --Deskana (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Good points. Re being terse, no harm done. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Austin Related Articles

I appreciate your changes to the Austin article (many of them were helpful), but your most recent edits eliminated the lead section (which comes before the table of contents), and were a violation of WP:LAYOUT. I do agree that there is too much emphasis of "Austin in the news" in the lead section, so I will move those sentences to more appropriate places in the article. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. .BTW - My gosh this article need a lot of help and more references!Dmartinaus • Talk 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed. I've always been meaning to work on it but other things have come in the way. I'll try to pitch in when I can. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I am also working slowly on Round Rock, Texas and Williamson County, Texas as I have time. Plenty to do with these two articles as well. Dmartinaus • Talk 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your old username

Hi, are you aware you recreated your old, renamed account and are currently editing with it? Jarkeld (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not my old username. It was someone else's who had not edited under this name in a long time and I applied for and was granted the use of it. Thanks for asking. Austex • Talk 18:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmartinaus (talk • contribs)

The signature of your comment says it all: You signed with Austex, but Signbot signed it in your old username: you are still editing as Dmartinaus, not as your new name Austex. Jarkeld (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats probably a signbot glitch. Go to the talk page of User:Austex and you'll find yourself right back on this page Minor4th • talk 20:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jarkeld is right; you should log out and log in to the Austex account - it looks like you automatically recreated the old username. –xeno^talk 20:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I got you. I started logging in as Austex a little while ago but not ealier (so there are a mix of the two name earlier.) At first I did not realize it had changed this morning. However, I just now logged is as Austex but it's still not correct. Let me check my preference signature again. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I had changed my signature in my preferences earlier, but I must not have "saved" my preferences. I logged in as Austex just now and things are OK with the sig. (But is it OK "inside" the system? How is it that I could have "re-created" the old name? How do I fix it? Austex • Talk 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you make of that Xeno? Austex • Talk 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

SineBot won't sign for you while logged in as Austex because you have over 800 edits. =) –xeno^talk 20:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So I just need to BE SURE to sign in as Austex and all is fine? Austex • Talk 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, sometimes after a rename an old cookie is lying around that signs you into the old username. (SUL causes this, I think). But as long as you're signed in as Austex, you're good to go. –xeno^talk 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have checked and all the page names transfered over to Austex just fine. If you click on Dmartinaus it switches you automatically to Austex. Austex • Talk 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all three of you for the help. Sorry I misunderstood your first email Jarkeld. Thanks! Austex • Talk 20:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just here to help :) Jarkeld (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)