Hi, I'm James 'Jim' Salsman. I'm a male wikipedian who got in trouble for not backing down in a dispute about depleted uranium and birth defects. I really want things to be much better than they are for female editors of all ages, because I am sure that would make it easier for people trying to work on the same social problems I had been working on. I believe I have been right to ignore my editing restrictions because they were not serving to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I am the only editor known to have taken an article to featured status while banned. I think if more people respected improving the quality of the encyclopedia instead of the often opposing policies and guidelines, the encyclopedia would be more welcoming for women and girls. I've already commented a couple times on http://suegardner.org/2011/01/31/new-york-times-prompts-a-flurry-of-coverag… where I read about this email list. I have a specific set of recommendations, at http://talknicer.com/wm10ca.pdf but I want to make the following overlapping recommendations to specifically address the gender inequality issue: 1. Ask chapters to compete to nurture the greatest number of female administrators; 2. Bring all the articles on birth control to featured status; 3. Revive Esperanza and the Association of Editors' Advocates with a focus on editor mentoring; 4. Support a multilateral tax haven treaty in the US and any other countries that might still be opposing one; 5. Less javascript for mobile devices; 6. Simple language wikipedias in languages other than English (likely using namespace, subpage, or similar methods, not necessarily entire new wikis, if that will help editors share watchlists); 7. Low stakes instructional assessment content in Moodle's GIFT http://microformats.org/wiki/gift ; 8. Audio upload with rtmplite and gnash -- not just "would be nice" but with money sent to gnash developers; 9. Most popular related articles; and 10. Remove WP:NOTHOWTO because it is used to argue against topic notability but not well respected. Please share your thoughts on these proposals. I am happy to explain how each of them benefits female editors or females in general (and thus female editors) and I hope you agree. Please let me know! Best regards, James Salsman