"== Go... ==

...to Sweden for msg.  

Woaah. Now you are making stuff confusing. Please stick to en-wiki for en-wiki matters, it took me a while to figure out ""Sweden"" meant ""Swedish Wikipedia"". But well: what kind of document is it? From what office? If it's an official document, it's bound to be published somewhere. And, remember, that it's true doesn't mean it should be included - if there has been no news reports or anything about it, it's hardly notable enough for inclusion. Stating that ""Infon ska in, så enkelt är det"" will ~hardly promote healthy discussion about it.  (Talk ° contribs) 

 defaultsort is your friend! 

Hello! I noticed your edit to Mikael Odenberg, so I thought I should drop by and tell you about the wonders of {{DEFAULTSORT}}.

A sortkey is an alternative term the article should be sorted by when listed in a category. For example to add an article called Albert Einstein to the category ""people"" and have the article sorted by ""Einstein, Albert"". You would type ""[[Category:People|Einstein, Albert]]"". This kind of sortkey you successfully added to Mikael Odenberg in your edit.

But, I reverted most of your edit! Why? Because there is a feature called ""Default sort key"", which changes the default sort key used by categories from the name of the article to the one specified with the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Instead of adding |Odenberg, Mikael you simply add  {{DEFAULTSORT:Odenberg, Mikael}} above the categories, which I had already done in this case.

Thank you for your otherwise very valuable contribution!  (Talk ° contribs) 

Ooh, neat. I didn't see that. Apparently, this is a new function in MediaWiki 1.10. That's really handy knowledge for the other Wikimedia projects that I'm involved in as well. Thanks for letting me know! — (talk, contribs) 

 Chemsitry Comments 
I have noticed that you seem to spend a lot of time commenting on chemistry articles, claiming that they need to be either put in context or wikified. I was wondering if you could put in context your own level of knowledge in chemistry, so that the articles can be reeditted to be applicable to your own level of knowledge. With the chemical reaction stubs, I have been assuming that people will generally be looking at them  if they have a basic level of chemical knowledge (i.e. one of about an A-Level student in England) and will not need a full explanation of why the reaction proceeds as it does. If this does not fulfil your ideals what else will I need to add, complete mechanisms with comments of facial and stereo selectivities and such. If so this is simply not possible as there will be a large amount of repeated information on Wikipedia. Please get back to me on this topic. - 

Hello! Eh. Lately I've indeed been editing chemistry articles; BUT only to remove improper categories (such as those you added to, well, a damn lot of articles). Using AutoWikiBrowser. On some, tags such as {{wikify}} have been posted, but not many. I may have edited one or two chemical reaction stubs, but I don't know which ones. Point out more specifically which articles you refer to and I'll see what I can do. Do note, however, that my knowledge of chemistry is extremely basic, and my contributions to chemistry articles have only been clean-up/maintenance work.  (Talk ° contribs) 

Its okay. I'm a qualified chemist, but you seem to be suggesting for example on the Bechamp Reaction that more detail is needed. To me it seems clear. Also on the category front, they were not incorrectly labelled. I have been putting them into the topmost category they can go into so as to create a list of all the chemists that appear on wikipedia. This is because it is otherwise hard to see who may or may not need to be added. I have been finding your editting very unhelpful in removing them from this category. I have not said anything as you seem likely to start an edit war. I have made