" 
 ::I already predicted that there probably is an arcane, technical reason for this, and that the arguments that have been presented up to this point are mere excuses; and your ""original research"" argument makes sense, unlike previous arguments that Twitter, thin air, and dead trees are ""sources"" and not ""media"". That's all I wanted and asked for: an honest answer. Not excuses, not embarrassingly poor arguments, not personal attacks, but an actual reason. Thank you for your substantive contribution - in fact, it's the first one in this particular discussion. 
 ::You had me momentarily amazed, because contrary to my expectations when I enter this particular talk page, I suddenly and without warning encountered good arguments, as opposed to embarrassments and mere personal attacks. Unfortunately, my eye subsequently fell on your signature, and I was filled with deep disappointment. Yeah... 
 ::My claim regarding personal attacks is not unsubstantiated at all. If you look through the previous discussion (which has been hidden, because Jac16888 prefers that people not read it, as it is embarrassing to him), you'll see that Jac16888 claims to know what people's motivations and intentions are, and that these are scurrilous - with no evidence to support it (and he didn't even try to make an argument or provide evidence - then again, that's also the case for other matters). Those are personal attacks - ironically, made when he was complaining that I ""libeled"" people with ""no evidence"".   "