Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:33, 21 March 2007

archive1 — All conversations ending before May 2006
archive2 — All conversations ending before Dec 2006

Some common questions are answered in the FAQ.

Security concerns?

As a user of VandalProof and AWB, I know how all those semi-automatic tools facilitate our work. But both VP and AWB have a list of registered editors and you cannot use them to make any controversial edits. Those tools are here to simplify routine changes and/or to fight vandals. Unfortunately, popups have been recently abused by User:VinceB in edit warring. He used popups to revert my edits[1] and, earlier, he tracked down reverted more than ten edits of User:PANONIAN's in another edit war.[2] Do you think guys it is safe to allow users with a long block log to play with popups? The use of popups as a weapon in an edit war is just annoying, but I am afraid someone will use them sooner or later to vandalize and that will be a real problem. Are there any security measures employed to prevent an abuse of popups? Tankred 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't. Since the code is readily available anyway, I don't see how such security measures could work. I'm not really convinced that they're desirable, either. Lupin|talk|popups 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with IPA Quickhelp Templates

I have an idea for making IPA symbols more comprehensible, using tooltips. I have made a template {{Ʒ}} that contains [[ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ|ʒ]], and then a redirect at [[ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ]] to the appropriate phonetic page. (Here it is without nowiki: Template:Ʒ, and here's a link to edit the template page: {{Ʒ}}. The discussion of this concept is here: template talk:Ʒ. Without popups, this works wonderfully: someone who doesn't know IPA sees blue text, moves their mouse over the link, then sees the quickie pronunciation help in the tooltip, and if they want to know more, they click and get the appropriate article. But popups makes it a major pain in the neck. Is there some easy way to tag the template so popups ignores these links? Or if not, could you please add a (span nopopups) feature to do this? Thanks, --Homunq 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side-by-side popups for diffs?

Is there an option for a side-by-side display of the differences in the recent changes of an article? John Reaves 05:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lupin|talk|popups 08:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen popups

Sometimes when I click on a link to go to another page, a popup from a link in the previous page gets "frozen" onto the next page, and it won't disappear unless I refresh the page. How to fix this? --Schzmo 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Firefox can you remedy this problem by clicking on "reset" after hovering over the "popups" menu. Otherwise, this problem is usually prevalent on IE/Opera/Safari. --Slgr @n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop-ups" in edit summaries

I'm not really familiar with Pop-ups, and don't really wish to be, but I find myself pretty offended when I am reverted with an edit summary like this that simply alludes to a tool rather than explains the edit. It seems to be saying, in effect, that my edit was vandalism, which it certainly was not. This is not the first time this has happened. I assume this is not intended as a tool to make WP:OWN and edit-warring easier. Are there some guidelines about this? - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I know about is on Help:Reverting#Admin features. Personally, even when reverting the most obvious POV or bad edits, I make some comment rather than just rolling back. I only do this kind of automated rollback (which comes with an unhelpful edit summary) for vandalism, obvious goofs (spelling, markup, gibberish), and occasionally problematic editors who engage in a lone revert war against everybody else. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to stick with this. My impression (reinforced by the help link I gave) is that to do something like this is considered "rude" but within the realm of tolerated behavior. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Is it possible to make edits minor when reverting? It seems like that would be a useful feature to add. The Placebo Effect 01:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the dev version, then you can now set popupMinorReverts=true; Thanks for the suggestion. Lupin|talk|popups 08:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Since non-admins apparently aren't "allowed" to have the built-in one-click revert feature, why is this allowed? --Random832^T 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search me :-) Lupin|talk|popups 08:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from user talk:Lupin/popups.js

I inquired with the following three topics (subtopics here) at user talk:Lupin/popups.js awhile back. —EncMstr 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff truncated for performance reasons

When viewing a popup difference, popups sometimes truncates the list of differences and shows Diff truncated for performance reasons at the bottom. This is well and good and it usually does the right thing, but every once in a while, I'm interested enough to see more, but not so much as to open another window. Would it be feasible to add a feature to indicate the user wants to see more? Like this:

Diff truncated for performance reasons (show more) (show all)

— EncMstr 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Default revert summary text

My monobook.js has, among other settings

 popupRevertSummaryPrompt = true;
 popupQueriedRevertSummary = 'revert vandal [[special:contributions/$3|$3]] ([[user talk:$3|talk]]) to last version by ';
 popupQueriedRevertToPreviousSummary = 'revert vandal [[special:contributions/$3|$3]] ([[user talk:$3|talk]]) to last version by ';

When viewing a revert worthy popup difference, I click on actions then revert. Perhaps once out of ten times, the evil editor's ID correctly replaces $3 and all I have to do is add the previous editor's name at the end. The other nine times, $3 has the previous edit's editor ID—a surprisingly tedious edit to fix.

Is something incorrectly set?
Is there a way to get the message correct most of the time?
Why does it not work the same way every time? I'm now certain I'm consistent: hovering the (diff) link on special:watchlist.
Are there additional variables for substitution which might be of interest? Like $8 perhaps? :-)
I'd like to select one of several messages: vandal, testing and blanking (for example). Any suggestions to make easier?
Is there a way to make the popup summary confirmation dialog wider?

I'm primarily using SeaMonkey 1.0.6 on XP SP2, but observe identical behavior with FireFox 1.5.0.8. — EncMstr 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text edit box popups

I accidently stumbled across this feature of popups in text edit boxes: if a double square bracket enclosed string is highlighted, hovering the mouse cursor over it activates useful popup features. (Way cool, by the way. Thanks.) The only thing that was infuriating—until I understood the cause—is that highlighting must be done with the mouse—if it's done using the keyboard (for example, holding down shift while pressing the arrow keys), the highlight isn't magic enough. (Weird, eh?) — EncMstr 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam popup tools

Hi all, I had a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam about the possibility of using popups as an interface for antispam work. Is that feasible? Could it be implemented soon? The spam problem is getting horrendous and we need automated tools. Some of the backend tools are ready (or could be made so soon), such as those listed at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam. Thakns - Taxman ^Talk 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such things may be possible, but I don't really understand what you'd like to see. Specifics, please! Lupin|talk|popups 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have lost my popup features recently.

I'm not sure how any of this works, but lately I have been losing popups fucntionality. First, the "Since" tab disappeared, and today I see that all the other great features are gone. Has there been an update or something that I need to know about? and re-add to my file? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Joy

I have been using popups in my project page since 2002 (MouseOver !Q!)... never any problem. I recently installed SNAP popup preview in my "MozDawg" blog ... it was, truly, a snap. No problem. Here, with this, I have CTRL-SHIFT-R a number of times, I have gone into T)ools, O)ptions and cleared Cache. I have restarted. I have rebooted. I have no joy. Perhaps Firefox is not supported? (I bet it has something to do with popup blocker; mebbe needs to be white-listed? Nope ... no such luck.) --BenTremblay 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups in the French Wikipedia

Just wondering, do popups exist in the French Wikipedia? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Painting template in Commons? =

Images with templates, do not show any information :( is that a current restriction? For example go on [3] and see image "Image:Auguste Renoir - La Balançoire.jpg", (fitrst in second row) popups will not display details about it, it contains:

\{\{Painting|
|Title = The Swing (La Balançoire)
|Artist = Template:Creator:Pierre-Auguste Renoir
|Year = 1876
...

Thanks, --JuanPDP 01:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RV ERROR

Igot this when i reverted using the rv in the popup menu "(Revert to revision 107362016 dated (unknown) by (unknown) using popups)" can someone explain what went wrong Pliz--Cometstyles 20:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still busted. I get this (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups) --Justanother 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you missing a ' (single quote) ? The folowing is a line from my set-up for comparison.
popupQueriedRevertSummary='Reverted to version by $3 on $2 - Using popups';
- X201 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked here, User:Lupin/popups.js, and it seems fine. --Justanother 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had Justanother's problem. I got this:

"(Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)" as my edit summary. Has something changed recently? Philip Trueman 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lupin has modified his popup file and it will only affect people who use Internet Explorer with a new version i.e IE6 and above..It doesnt affect Mozilla Users. The change was that he Modified this file User:Lupin/popups.js into a Development version that he was testing--Cometstyles 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that explains my problem. I just rebooted for the second time thinking I had an error. Ronbo76 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running IE 7.0.5730.11 Philip Trueman 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm no wonder anywayz Lupin says that it doesnt affect Mozilla so I might try that for a while until he Improves it..--Cometstyles 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am running 6.0025 or higher and still getting the dollar sign revisions. Ronbo76 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that this problem is with users who have IE6 or NEWER versions but if your version is 5.5 or below then it wont affect you..I just tried it on Mozilla and it works fine..It only Affects Internet Explorer--Cometstyles 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5.5 and below??? Well, I guess it needs to be removed. It worked fine until this morning. Ronbo76 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup thats when he Lupin changed the thing. Check in the history section User:Lupin/popups.js . He tried to use some new idea and it backfired and all through the night I thought something went wrong wiht my Monobook and I had 2 delete everything and find popups form other users who didnt encounter this problem.Well no need to remove itjust dont use it for a while and until Lupin gets it fixed--Cometstyles 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be an IE 6 issue, tried all sorts of variables to ake it work, but it doesent. hopfully this gets reverted back to the previous version untill its fixed and compatable with all browsers.--Hu12 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unwilling to do this at the moment, since I cannot duplicate the error myself (so I can't fix it) and I think it's too early to rule out caching issues. (See my talk page for a workaround if you're frustated by this). Lupin|talk|popups 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err… I get the impression that Hu12 is quite aware of this workaround, as he came up with it :-) --Van helsing 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get this error also. It worked fine on IE6 and then started doing this...19:26, February 21, 2007 Postoak (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups) Postoak 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Lupin#Getting "revision $1 dated $2 by $3" as per the paragraph RV bug below (I can't take credit). I changed to this older script and it rocks again!!! Ronbo76

Help

I have tried to get Popups to work properly, so I followed the instructions on WP:POPUPS. Mainly to get rid of the really annoying purple preview box that now appears whenever I highlight text in the edit window. So I edited my Monobook.js to look like this (I want a slightly longer delay, the admin links, no purple preview thing, and no images in the popup):

// User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line 
importScript('User:Lupin/popups.js');
popupDelay=2;
popupAdminLinks=true;
popupOnEditSelection=false;
popupImageLinks=false;

... and now it doesn't work. Whenever I tried to edit a page, my browser crashed (using IE 6). I had to delete my monobook.js before I could edit any pages on Wikipedia. What am I doing wrong? Please bear in mind I am virtually ignorant when it comes to coding, so please explain what I need to do to make it work simply. Proto ► 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now - I used the old popups script rather than the new one, as the new one doesn't work. Proto ► 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proto. I was going to "cheat" and copy from you but your monobook.js page is blank. Where did you put the script? I thought it had to be in monobook? --Justanother 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using popups for some time now for previewing articles and diffs etc. Recently, when highlighting a bracketed term in the editing text frame, instead of previewing the page in a popup in the box, a teal bar now appears above the editing area with a wikilink to the highlighted bracketed text, which I then have to move the mouse to in order to produce a popup preview. I recently changed some values (FixRedirs=true; FixDabs=true; RevertSummaryPrompt=true) - perhaps that is responsible? Your assistance would be very much appreciated. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That annoying purple preview thing

It is almost impossible to edit with that purple preview box. I've disabled it with the popupOnEditSelection fix (which luckily worked for me; I refuse to edit with that horrible purple preview box, which doesn't work correctly, causes the page to jump unexpectedly, and unhighlights text I'm trying to highlight), but now when I highlight a wikilink in the edit box, it doesn't display the normal pop-ups navigation box. How do I get that feature back? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a strange bug in the summary column when using pop-up. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think you want to read two sections above. --Van helsing 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There summary is "Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups".--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from your contribs that is indeed your problem, please read User talk:Lupin#Getting "revision $1 dated $2 by $3". --Van helsing 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's horrible! Can we go back to the "old way" please? Popups in edit mode used to be great, now it's an annoyance. See further comments on the village pump about this. --kingboyk 12:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside which way is better, the new way has less functionality, since you can't use it to check if a category exists. If you try to preview a category like [[Category:Railroads]], nothing appears in the box. --NE2 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there's a new bug which means you can't get the old behaviour back yet. Hopefully I'll restore it when I find the bug! Lupin|talk|popups 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category preview

I don't mind the purple box, but what I do miss is the ability to highlight wiki code for a category and get a preview; I use this when I want to see if the category exists, or if there's a suitable sub-category I can use. That is, in the edit box, I could once highlight

[[Category:Films]]

and get a popup for the category; now when I highlight it I get an empty purple box above my edit box. If I use a colon

[[:Category:Films]]

, I can get a popup, but then I have to remember to remove the colon. Is this a bug or a feature? Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv bug?

I get this edit summary comment since a couple of days ago:

(Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups) ^[4]

The $1,2,3 (variables?) are not substituted. Niko Silver 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Lupin#Getting "revision $1 dated $2 by $3". --Van helsing 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External wiki, serverside

Is there any way to implement this as a server-side extension in an external MediaWiki Wiki, so it's on for users by default, but only for certain links/images (defined in the page being edited), and with custom content for the popup? What I'm really trying to say here is that all I'd like to use is the basic popup functionality. Dirtie 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got it worked out for using as is, I just put the needed bit into the "MediaWiki:common.js" page - doesn't seem to work in IE though. Anyway, is there any chance of you being able to show me which are just the basic functions for creating a popup box (pretty please)? I really want to turn the basic popup functionality into some sort of extension. Dirtie 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "creating a popup"? Do you just want a box, or a box with stuff in it, or a box with all the stuff my script puts into it? Lupin|talk|popups 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a box with stuff in it. For example, ideally it would be something like:

<popupbox boxcontents="contents of box goes here">mouseover text/link/image</popupbox>

(or the text/link/image could be a parameter and the description could go between the tags, and so on)

I'm certainly not selfish enough to request for you to write a custom extension, I'm just interested in knowing the method you use to generate a popupbox - I've taken a look through the code, and I'm afraid I get a bit lost, especially with trying to figure out which functions would be needed, and which wouldn't.

Failing all of that, is there a way to disable everything in your standard implementation (including the title if needed), apart from the edit button and the page contents? Dirtie 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interesting in having this as an extension as well. I'm not a savvy javascript user but if there is anything i can do to help, let me know. --Skunark 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in script?

Hi, folks. I'm having an intermittent error with Popups--sometimes when I try to preview a webpage, I get "Preview failed :-( Is the query.php extension installed?" Is this in Popups, or in the main Wiki code?

I'm running WinXP/Firefox, with ZoneAlarm. Any other info needed, let me know here, and I'll followup here. Thanks. :D Justin Eiler 03:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started getting this too. Seems to be only for image previews. The fact it's asking for a .php file suggests it's server-side, but I'm not familiar with the workings of popups, so can't say more than that. Robferrer 10:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also getting this error message too and it seems to be for all images. Evil Vin 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a bug in the wikipedia servers which is causing this. You can set popupUseQueryInterface=false to get rid of it, but that'll stop some other stuff from working (eg history/contribs previews). Lupin|talk|popups 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with refresh on Special:Recentchanges

I just installed popups today, and I'm having a small problem...the popups work fine, but every time I try to use the Refresh button (on Internet Explorer) on the Recentchanges screen, the browser freezes, and I have to quit and log in again. Is this a problem with my computer or with the popups script, and if it's the latter, is there anything I can do about it? It's not catastrophic (as the Recentchanges screen works fine if I use the navigation panel at the side, rather than the Refresh button), but it's annoying. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's a problem with your computer. Lupin|talk|popups 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting text

The last few days when I've been editing a page, if I delete some text, the navpops picks more text, delets it all, then puts it in a blue box above the edit box, as if previewing the text I've deleted. This blocks my ability to undo on my broswer, and is incredibly annoying--why do I want to preview text I've deleted? And, because it has links as hyperlinks, instead of as brackets, I can't just copy and paste it back in. What is happening? How do I stop this? Is this new? Help! It's totally useless, annoying, and makes editing difficult rather than easier. KP Botany 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening? I can't even edit with this anymore. Why was this done? I can't follow the discussion above to fix this to the old way. I don't even understand what this is supposed to do besides annoy the user and make it difficult to edit--what's the point? The whole idea of navpop is to make it easier to edit, isn't it?

See below. Lupin|talk|popups 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, it's worthless now, so I deleted it.

Forget it, I removed it. This was a rather handy program, I don't understand why someone trashed it to make it unusable--that seems to be contrary to its stated purpose: convenience. It is never convenient to override the user's browser tools, and posting the text I just copied above the edit box was completely pointless, and only meant I couldn't undo whatever it was I was doing. And, picking up more text than I selected? Whatever for? Is it machine-coded to assume the user really wanted the whole bottom of the page rather than the one word they highlighted? Meaning I had to go back in and replace text that NavPop had deleted for me to make it appear as if I had vandalized an article--whatever would this be used for, the assumption that the user always wanted ALL of the rest of the text in the box highlighted rather than what they selected? Geeze. How incredibly frustrating--this should have come with a warning to users that it had been made unusable. KP Botany 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn this off somehow, I think... *rummages* ... try popupOnEditSelection=false. Annoyingly, there's a bug which means that you can't get the old behaviour any more, but this should stop the distraction you've experienced. Lupin|talk|popups 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already suggested on user's talk page. Gimmetrow 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, Gimmetrow suggested it on my talk page. I will try it next time I get a day off, as I did like the old NavPop, it was handy, and even the computer-stupid could use it (moi) and save some time editing Wikipedia--sadly, no more. I will pick on Gimmetrow if I can't figure out the installation, but I think I can. Thanks both for stopping by to answer, as this is very frustrating. KP Botany 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually like the new style? I found the old style more useful, but the new style is better than nothing. --NE2 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try removing it for a couple of days, like I have, and I suspect you will conclude that the new style is NOT better than nothing. I'm still so irritated from it deleting all that extra text that I feel nothing but relief to have done with it--good grief, that's a big part of Wikipedia, removing partial content, and someone redesigns a program to extend the amount of comment you selected for deletion? I probably won't reinstall, even if the edit above MIGHT work. It just did too much damage for the little time it was in. KP Botany 03:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had popupOnEditSelect=false for a long time - found the popups disruptive in the edit window. I really haven't noticed anything different recently in navpops. What did it do, formerly? Gimmetrow 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly it only deleted the text you selected to delete. Imagine. KP Botany 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for changing it back. --NE2 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was changed back. It hasn't been. It still deletes on its own accord making its users vandals, imo. KP Botany 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi. I have three questions. If they are answered I may get some of these tools.

When it says "install", is it actually installed into your computer, or is it just in your monobook?
Since it's semiautomatic, is it possible to still provide an edit summary over the automatic one, and will the "prompt me when leaving a blank edit summary" option still work?
Is it safe for your computer to add it, and will it cause problems if your internet becomes slow or is used with other tools?

Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Can you add a "unlink" button to the popup which automatically removes the link in concern with an edit summary? This is useful when dealing with double-linking. --Der yck C. 05:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a reliable way to do this. Sorry! Lupin|talk|popups 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary problem

The edit summary when using these popups to revert now comes up as (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups) without adding the relevant numbers and dates Lurker ^oi! 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Undo" feature

My "undo" function recently stopped working, instead leaving me at an "edit" page that is identical to the current version. Has anyone else had a problem like this? Tewfik^Talk 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, seems fine to me. Can you copy and paste the URL you end up at when you click the undo link? Lupin|talk|popups 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't work with Mozilla

I noticed today that this doesn't work with Mozilla. With Mozilla 1.4.1, most of the popups don't show up at all, and the ones that do look very strange; I also see this in the javascript console:

Error: this.article has no properties
Source File: http://..../popups.js
Line: 6217

I thought I was doing something wrong, until I realised it works flawlessly in firefox. -Steve Sanbeg 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped Working

A short time ago I found that the popups no longer showed the preview. They would show the first part and maybe a photo, but no content.

It seems there is a conflict with wikEd (User:Cacycle/wikEd) which explicitly installs Pilaf's Live Preview also. It used to work, but I suppose changes to one or the other brought them into conflict, pulling in different versions or something?

I commented out the latter from my monobook.js file, and all is well. wikEd's preview still works, because popups is being installed first.

—Długosz 13-March-2007

Mac

Will popups work with Mac OS X?Paloma Walker

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 :::I'm certainly not selfish enough to request for you to write a custom extension, I'm just interested in knowing the method you use to generate a popupbox - I've taken a look through the code, and I'm afraid I get a bit lost, especially with trying to figure out which functions would be needed, and which wouldn't.
 :::Failing all of that, is there a way to disable everything in your standard implementation (including the title if needed), apart from the edit button and the page contents? [[User:Dirtie|Dirtie]] 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
+::::I would be interesting in having this as an extension as well.  I'm not a savvy javascript user but if there is anything i can do to help, let me know. --[[User:Skunark|Skunark]] 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 == Error in script? ==