User:Duae Quartunciae/sandbox

Floats
This text is inside a small div box which is floated to the right.

This text should wrap around the box, and then continue to use all the available width of the parent box once it moves past the bottom edge of the floating box, so as to use as much of the available real estate without running into trouble.

This text is inside a small div box which is floated to the right.

Demonstration including a second box, floating to the left. This box floats left. This text should wrap around both boxes, and then continue to use all the available width of the parent box once it moves past the bottom edge of the floating box, so as to use as much of the available real estate without running into trouble.

This text is inside a small div box which is floated to the right.

Demonstration with non-float box. This box doesn't float, but its margin is with respect to its parent box, which is going to overrun the floating box. The text, however, continues to wrap as appropriate. This text should wrap around only the first box, and then continue to use all the available width of the parent box once it moves past the bottom edge of the floating box, so as to use as much of the available real estate without running into trouble.

Boxes
This is a post by some enthusiastic newbie with who needs a gentle hint. Mentor advisory comment: Here's a helpful suggestion for you, grasshopper.

This is a post by some seasoned expert who wants to cite advanced literature.  Here's a complex explanation for you, maestro. -- By this reference

Winston Churchill once said of democracy:  No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. -- Winston Churchill

It has been noted that this comment could easily be applied to the principle of peer review in scientific literature.  Of course, peer review has its well-discussed flaws and problems, but to date no better system has been devised to ensure quality. The argument for peer review is not that it is perfect, but is the best system we have yet to devise. It can, perhaps, be compared with Winston Churchill’s’ opinion of democracy: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.” Ultimately, scientific ‘truth’ is a relative concept that changes over time, but what better way to measure this change than to use the opinions of contempories? Peer reviewing itself can (and perhaps should) be an onerous task for a peer reviewer, which inevitably takes time away from their own research. But it remains, at its best, a vital safeguard against the publication of material that could falsely alter scientific knowledge or cause unnecessarily panic to the public. For this reason, journals such as ‘Clinical Ophthalmology’ will continue to use the collective wisdom of the wider scientific community to ensure we maintain the standards for publication of high quality research. -- Scott Fraser (2007) Winston Churchill and peer review, in Clinical Ophthalmology 1(2) pp 91–92.

Talk page response with named groups of references
Sometimes people make long rambling replies in which they bring up a whole swag of points, each of which needs a distinct response.

Here, for example, they might include an insult.

And after that, on they go with another unrelated point.


 * You can give a general overview response as per usual, followed by the grouped reflist. It should appears as a numbered response, with clickable links to jump between comment and response:


 * Adios


 * Doing it a second time is tricky, and requires teh #tag magic word. Details at WP:FOOTNOTE.


 * You can keep doing it!


 * On and on it goes....


 * Until eventually, it is all just too confusing and it's not even clear why we bother.