Fixing Assange and resistance: I have preferences set to show cache pages, but "Assange" also took "18.002 secs" (not 0.250) for me to access, obviously bypassing cache but not edited in 3 hours, while other articles showed cache-page copies. That's another performance shock for me: one article bypasses cache. I cleared my entire browser cache, and then Assange showed the cache-page copy. As for broad resistance, the Continuous Improvement movement (Kaizen, etc.) has warned, "People dislike change". Most act like the "boiling frog" and sit while the temperature rises, never moving until too late and "Beyonce" runs 26 seconds (or Assange 18). I advised Jimbo, to add "More pillars" where Performance becomes a major priority, like Civility or NPOV, rather than "personal preference to see results" in the same hour, while they demand the cite-tools still work. You might know I've had severe rejections trying to defuse essay wp:PERF, and explain how the Titanic sank because "Don't worry" thwarted other people from acting or improving (the ship design included ample lifeboats rejected by others). This year, with the Costa Concordia in Italy, passengers worried enough about the tilting ship to call land-based police to complain the ship seemed damaged while crew pretended "Don't worry". Enough. I think we are reaching "critical mass" to move forward here. The next compromise consensus supports all parameters (as demanded pronto), and auto-runs the quick citations, with later promises to "fix" {Citation/core} where possible, and still support those cite-tools which generate {cite_web} calls and such. It is a hideously complex upgrade, with over 23 forks as {cite_book}, {cite_video}, {cite_document}, {cite_press_release}, {cite_encyclopedia}, even "{citeweb}" or "{cite web}" but fixing the most-used will cure the speed problems. Plus, the talk-page already warns to deprecate "surname1" for "last1" where 3 fewer alias parameters could mean 2x faster for that parameter, perhaps next year. Beyond the complex fast {Fcite} templates, the rapid {cite_quick} runs 10x-12x faster, so "Assange" can drop from 18 to 5-second edit-preview. I already saved some temporary revisions to "prove" Assange can reformat in 5 seconds:
 Assange  03:32, 15 August 2012‎ Wikid77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (126,986 bytes) (-1,526)‎ . . (undid 2nd prior revision to compare performance & confirm edit-preview returns to 18 seconds, when not using Template:Cite_quick.) 
 Assange  03:28, 15 August 2012‎ Wikid77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (128,512 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (+past-tense verb "has published")
 Assange  03:23, 15 August 2012‎ Wikid77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (128,508 bytes) (+1,526)‎ . . (used Template:Cite_quick in 218 cases to reduce the edit-preview, or reformat, time from average 18 seconds to 5 seconds.)
 Assange  23:56, 14 August 2012‎   (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (126,982 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Request for political asylum)
 As long as several of us continue working together, even part-time, I think we can solve the speed problems soon, and set some precedents to solve other performance problems which people were warned don't-worry about (see my essay: wp:DOWORRY). Naturally, some people might be embarrassed to have fought the improvements, so that has also slowed progress, to keep a lower profile. -