"
You quickly forget that I am objecting to the MISINTERPRETATION of a 'rule', and the MISAPPLICATION of a 'rule'.   (or, do you not concede that, hypothetically, a VALID, proper rule can be MISINTERPRETED and/or MISAPPLIED?).  Merely citing the RULE is pointless, when the problem is the misinterpretation or misapplication of the rule!
 Further, Dodo violated WP rules, by not allowing a consensus of the group to develop.  He also misapplied a rule, claiming that something I said must be 'verifiable'.  But what does it mean, to be 'verified'?  Dodo implied that what I said must be verifiably, scientifically TRUE.  I claim, quite to the contrary, that since the article involved is 'Jim Bell' (subject, ME), that the only 'verifiability' issue is this:  Did 'James Dalton Bell' ACTUALLY make these claims.  (Or, conversely and hypothetically, 'is someone else forging his identity?, etc.)   For example, there was no need to RUSH and delete my posts.  Rather, somebody (preferably, one familiar with LOGIC) could have said, ""Bell, how do we know that 'you', 'jimdbell@q.com', is in fact the 'jim bell' (James Dalton Bell) who is the subject of the 'Jim Bell' WP article?  We need to be able to VERIFY the fact that 'jim bell' actually said/did this."" (To ensure that 'jim bell' is not being libelled by a stealth forgery.)
In response, I would have immediately said, ""Good question!""  And I could have promptly proceeded to do whatever was necessary to establish this fact.  Perhaps I could also have donated a recent (current!) photograph to the article, which (of course) could be compared with other published (even if not public domain) photographs which are available on the web.   
But as John Belushi was so fond of saying, 'BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO!'  Rather than HELP a 'newbie' (to WP), AND wait for a consensus, and actually help VERIFY that 'jimdbell@q.com' is actually, 'jim bell', Dodo decided to be an ass and repeatedly delete my edits.  And, he deleted ALL my edits, not merely some portion which (allegedly) was not 'verifiable'.  I will give an example, to the contrary:  I also posted a claim that I accused the Feds of forgery in a criminal appeal case, 99-30210.  In fact, in June 2003 I wrote a lawsuit (195 pages) which has (I believe) LONG been posted on the Web.  (Probably Cryptome/JYA).  It (as I recall) makes exactly this accusation.  So, if Dodo had actually acted INTELLIGENTLY, he would have edited my edit to cite my lawsuit, which has been posted for perhaps 5+ years.  (Or, he would have said to me, ""Bell, you need to show a cite of your lawsuit..."").  THAT would have been productive, useful, and helpful.  (As opposed to being hostile, counterproductive, and malicious.)   So, why didn't Dodo do THAT?!?   The answer is quite simple:  Dodo is hostile, counterproductive, and malicious.  He's a 'control freak'.  (Apparently, WP attracts 'control freaks'.)  Rather than being assisting, supportive, and helpful, Dodo wants to slap around newbies who upset his apple cart.
  "