User talk:PNWnatureLoser

Providing reliable sources
Your contributions are appreciated, so I don't want to burden you with complaints. I hope you continue to improve Wikipedia after learning about how things are done here. If content is added without a source, its chances of staying in Wikipedia are severely diminished. Other editors might revert it outright as unsourced; or a tag can be placed next to the claim; or maybe a  tag, which is what I did. I encourage you to consult Help:Referencing for beginners, and describe the sources where readers can find support for the information you added. Thank you. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You marked this edit as minor, with the edit summary "Minor grammar corrections and some basic information on Eelgrass and other aquatic plants, as well as native american relations with the salmon." The word minor is carrying more weight than Wikipedia's house definition can bear. (See: Help:Minor edit)
 * With this edit, you added quite a bit of information to the article, but you did not provide any sources. The guidance at WP:Reliable sources explains why sourcing is a must for content in the encyclopedia, and what are considered reliable sources.

Using images in Wikipedia
You can leave the edit as is, but FYI: your edit here added an image to the infobox where the URL pointed to a domain outside Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia will only display images (see Images) that are from the Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free-to-use images, sounds, videos and other media. There are hoops to adding an image to the repository, mostly related to ensuring that the item is free from copyright protection, so that Wikipedia is not exposed to legal liability (the right to copy any original expression is automatically granted to the originator without any requirements such as declaration, registration or fees). You needn't bother to correct it. I left the URL there, because the only effect is that Wikipedia won't display it, and maybe someone else will be able to supply a link to an approved one. I notice the photo is published by 'wa.gov', and many government entities by law consider "government" material to be released into the public domain, under the theory that the content is ultimately produced or purchased by the tax-payers, and is thus the intellectual property of "the people". Again, I don't want to deter your continued improvements here with feedback on the many rules and guidelines. You can safely leave it as is, and keep it in mind for the future. Unless you really want to dive into a "continuing education" project on the intracacies of Wikipedia media use. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)