From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

(Disparagement of content regarded as implausible)[edit]

"Helen Duncan, a British psychic, is believed to truly have materialised spirits of deceased persons through ectoplasm" HA, you're killing me. "believed to truly have materialised..." Can someone change it to a more appropriate encyclopedic phrasing?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2005‎

(Removal of "#Ghosts, made of ectoplasm, despite being able to walk through doors, are known to be able to stop bullets.")[edit]

I took out that tripe about the ghosts. ApocalypseCow 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

("I delete thee, I delete thee, I delete thee!")[edit]

"Ectoplasm is also a term used to describe the vapour appearing on the wings of an aircraft when it is performing high-energy manoeuvres. ... See also St. Elmo's Fire. ... The study of this effect was the focus of the famous Philadelphia experiment."
I can't say for sure, but AFAIK these three things are completely unrelated to each other. Anybody can shed light on this? -- Syzygy 11:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Philadelphia Experiment makes no mention of ectoplasm. The article's need for cleanup and verification notwithstanding, I think it's pretty well established that the focus of the experiment (real or hoax) was invisibility and/or teleportation, not ectoplasm or St. Elmo's Fire. 22:57, 89 wassup niggaz November 2006 (UTC)Vandalism by User: (User talk: has been struck thru and miniaturized by me. Jerzyt 10:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Ectoplasm is also referred to in 1937, the movie Topper.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2006‎


Is this a disambiguation page, or an article? It has too much information for a disambiguation page, IMO, but also discusses multiple independent subjects. It should be one or the other. JulesH 10:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

True. We should split it up. I'll start. --Hob Gadling 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A note on talk-style[edit]

   As Arlo Guthrie might say, i don't think i speak for a movement (or even a massacree). Still, i not only follow a reasonably widespread practice among experienced WP-editors, of annotating unsigned talk contributions, but also remediate newcomers' omissions in other aspects of talk-page discussion with a readability-enhancing set of practices, on talk pages that seem to show the effects of a lack of good examples for new colleagues to follow.
   To wit, most talk-page editors can be IDed as either raising a new topic, or as responding to a previous talk(-page) contribution. Most experienced talk participants precede their initiation of a new topic with a "section heading" at the bottom of the page; e.g. this section is titled "A note on talk-style". I know of nowhere else (than in this contribution by me) where figuratively retrofitting missing talk-headings is explicitly commended, but usually putting parentheses or square brackets (around my best guess at what title a colleague would have chosen if they'd known their colleagues find them useful) seems to make a neglected talk page more usable. (My parody above of some movie exorcist's "I rebuke thee!" -- or some similar ritual phrase that i've forgotten -- is IMO better than either leaving no heading, or taking my task too seriously). I've every reason to believe these practices to work as adequate warning that the heading is not the discussion-starter's chosen title. (Often we as well indent our contributions below (not above) what we're responding to, and a level further to the right.)
   My use of style changes (bold, italic, size change) coordinated with using the same style in a "signature enhancement", indicates that a later user has (whether intentionally and maliciously, or not) effectively made a forgery by failing to distinguish their intended correction from the prior editor's contrib. Strikethru, like this, seems to work well for repairing (usually vandalistic) forgery without obscuring that vandalism or falsification has been attempted, as in one section above.
--Jerzyt 10:01, :08, &:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced talk[edit]

   Evidently the observation that the accompanying Dab needed splitting did not result in merging part or all of this talk page into what is now talk: Ectoplasm (paranormal). I'm done for now, but an edit session by me within the next day or so should begin with considering whether anything on this talk page really is about the Dab page (hmm, i assume at least the split proposal is); that will determine which is appropriate: merging, or splitting off part of, this talk page, to Talk:Ectoplasm (paranormal).
--Jerzyt 10:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)