>Keeps getting "Notabled"
Anons nominate, bakers vet that info is sauced, relevant and novel, and choose whether to include in notables or not.
>Keeps getting ignored by bakers.
I see an unsauced claim here, that might be why baker hasn't yet noted it.
The twatter account holder needs to sauce his claim, and the anon that posts the info needs to include a URL link where baker/anons can vet independently verify the info in the posts is accurate. Images can be shopped, and well-meaning anons can misinterpret. Bakers can't just copypasta whatever anons nominate. We are citizen journalists that Q has asked to lead the public in how to require evidence and use logic before publicizing claims.
The bigger, more sensational the claim, especially if it attributes actions against a public figure which could affect his reputation, the more solid the evidence needs to be.