User talk:76.113.95.102

On 2017-10-23 I made some edits to correct a few false assumptions made in both the article and reference citations. For example, the Bayer filter method to get a color picture from a single image sensor is common in consumer electronics, but has not been used in professional and broadcast video equipment, where "3-tube" and later "3-chip" cameras are used by convention. The tide is turning, and inexpensive DSLR and other single sensor cameras are finding their way into broadcast productions, however at the time of this edit, the 3-CCD camera is still king in pro video production. Another citation that claimed that blue jeans was a reason to use green screen keying over blue is not consistent with the dress code of business suits being the norm in television news broadcasts. Of course fashion is subject to change, but during the 1970s and '80s, when the chroma key process saw the most technological advancement, business suits were the norm, and blue was a popular color for men's suits. I also replaced verbatim cut-and-paste from referenced websites with original work, replaced references containing inaccurate marketing content with an authoritative source, and tied together a cohesive historical time line. I also eliminated the "in the past decade" cut-and-paste from yet another flawed Internet blog. Other fallacies that I corrected include the conflation of "electronic" with "digital" and similar misunderstandings of the analog television methods that predate digital ones. IMO it is very important to know that the technology of chroma keying was developed completely in the analog domain of linear circuits. My own expertise comes from decades of work in the TV industry, undergraduate study and other real-world knowledge that doesn't have a corresponding web page. Had I known, I wouldn't have thrown out all those equipment manuals that would be great, authoritative historical sources!

76.113.95.102 (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Speed Daemon

Original research and sourcing
First, thanks for any contributions whoever is reading this has made to wikipedia. Someone else removed a section from Swissair Flight 111 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swissair_Flight_111&diff=826156732&oldid=826147924] after I tagged it for OR. I agree with this removal since it does appear to be more or less pure WP:Original research. From what I can tell, the section was added by someone using this IP [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swissair_Flight_111&type=revision&diff=817901051&oldid=817817167] and since it looks like someone is still using it, I thought I'd mention it there. While we welcome contributions from anyone to wikipedia, these contributions do need to follow our policies and guidelines. One of the cornerstone policies is that content most be verifiable so content must generally cite WP:reliable sources which fully support what our articles are saying. This means that you should not criticise a report only citing that report. (Well unless the report also weirdly criticises itself.) You need to find reliable sources which have made that criticism of the report and cite those. You cannot come up with a shortcomings from your own reading of the report and mention them in the article citing the report, that is what we call original research. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be useful to cite the report itself to aide readers in getting an understanding of what's being criticised but that's about it of citing the report. Nil Einne (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)