>>5916874

Ty baker!

>>5916819 lb

Re: the above feedback on notables, sorry I got it in so late. You'd mentioned you were a newer baker, so I meant to do it earlier. Anon corrected me about the NZ one, but I neglected to mention that the Chronic Pain one was self-nominated, and we usually have an even higher standard for those. It's not misinformation or entirely irrelevant, so it's not the end of the world if it's included, but a baker's job isn't so much a recorder, but an editor. One of the hardest challenges for new bakers is knowing what to prune. Otherwise newer anons can argue for the "Why not?" standard of inclusion, which is total cancer and gets out of hand quickly. We also have to watch for anons wanting to "make notables" as trophies. Not saying the anon in this case did that, just saying this is another reason bakers have to apply discretion regarding pruning.

Everyone cares about health and everyone loves our servicemen, so those are both categories anons are tempted to find noteworthy out of personal interest. But we're a political research group with a focus on cabal crimes and related players that Q calls out. Since he hadn't mentioned anything about chronic pain in servicemen, or any of the players involved in the article, I'd categorize the post as outside the scope of Q Research.

>>5916886 lb

>It's not a repeat, I added 3 more news articles related and a video file of the Mosque leader.

You're right, thanks for pointing that out. Sorry I didn't look more closely, just saw the same article title figured it was same content.

>You're transparent.

>Cry more :)

Kek, if you knew who I was you'd kek with me over that. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone more outspoken about calling out the Jews and including it in notables on this board than me, anon. I just want to make sure we're running a tight ship is all.

When notable buns get too bloated with fluff/repeats, anons start to reeee.

>>5917210

You're hardly in a position to give newbs advice if you can't even signal lb/pb anon. It also seems like telling them how to filter is the main point of your post. Shills protecting certain groups who don't want their wrongdoing exposed often pose as anons to encourage newfags to filter out content that might seem like wrongthink based on MSM brainwashing.

Baker

Please consider removing these notables:

1)

>>5916969, >>5917089 Gillibrand subsidizing NXVIM case?

Not only is the information not sauced, but it's already been dug. Anon says the newly notable info is that $65,000 is the same number of Hussein's hot dogs. I think that's far too speculative/random a connection.

2)

>>5917095 The Navy Needs 2 Tons of Storage Devices Burned to Ash

This article is dated February, and the information is outside the scope of Q Research. We already know the military use tech devices to store sensitive info, it's not noteworthy they'd seek a contract to dispose of them.

TY!!

>>5917230

mmmm, beeeer (kek, cheers anon)