[':::For gawd\'s sake, this "20 year old browser" catchphrase really has the political spin-doctor in you running riot. No one has mentioned anything about a preference for Word Perfect as their preferred word processor... and seriously suspect the average older contributor/editor doesn\'t send off to the MP3 PRO club for for their cracked software. There are a lot of people who don\'t run 64-bit OS\'s simply because their favourite programs & 3rd party plugins are only 32-bit compatible. In itself, that\'s irrelevant as people are going to have to move along whether they prefer to or not. What IS relevant is that what you\'re doing is working on the assumption that the inevitable is here & now and that V/E is capable of accommodating enough platforms, OS\'s & browsers to be backwards compliant within reason & to be able to keep up with advents in the future. Seriously? You haven\'t even managed to debug it enough to get past Alpha phase & you\'ve rolled it out as a Beta system when it can\'t handle anything beyond the most simple tasks. And you\'re seriously expecting that there should be any vote of confidence when, in its present state, it\'s caused a furore. The Tearoom has asked for assistance in handling the queries about the system because they don\'t know their way around it themselves. The Village Pump is about to explode and I\'m still getting <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> markups just editing pages that contain anything other than straightforward text (god forbid that there be an image floated left for aesthetic purposes because you can\'t get to the wrapped text underneath that div). Take a look at the RFC page. If that isn\'t a vote of no confidence in your brilliant system, I don\'t know what is. The articles look like abortions absolutely dripping with edit source/edit beta/edit me yellow and call me a banana tabs at every subsection when V/E doesn\'t edit subsections. I\'ve been having nightmares about it and, unlike you, I don\'t even get paid to have nightmares about it. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Iryna Harpy|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->\n', '* From {{phab|51187}} it isn\'t clear what "IE\'s non-standard quirk" (per [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]]) is. I\'m not a MS-apologist (mainly use Chrome myself) but IMO you need to be careful about making "non-standard" claims without taking a look at the other side of the coin. Is this in fact a situation where IE doesn\'t follow W3C technical recommendations, or is because there\'s some security thing&mdash;that no-one has standardized&mdash;where IE is giving the user more protection than the other browsers? Maybe that\'s why corporates stick with IE? The headline \'\'"Wikipedia wants editors to lower their security"\'\' probably isn\'t what we need right now. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']