Like I said elsewhere you have an amazing ability to see bad faith conspiracies, and a strange way to spin each of these differences in a quite misleading way. Here is my account of your differences: 
 * You seemed to be harassing this editor by edit warring on his own talk page. I was standing up for the guy and telling you to leave him alone. His talk page is his own. If he reverted your warning then we can assume that he read it. Restoring is just harassment in my book. Also, I was not following you but  watching that editor since he was making good contributions on the article, and agreeing with me. Naturally I am interested in following his other edits. 
 * Not mistaking you for someone else. You were blocked for making more than one revert and are on some kind of 1 revert parole. I just did not know it was only for some subjects in particular. Instead of explaining this to me, you simply reverted my message to you under the very uncivil edit summary "removing trolling.' I'm no troll. 
 * Since you didn't have the civility or courtesy to explain anything to me, I logically asked someone else about your restriction because if you are violating it, stopping you would be good for the article since your very disruptive there in my view. Unfortunately your 1 revert parole was not for all articles.  
 * Why should I leave another message on your talk page to apologize to you after you called me a troll and reverted my message? That is very funny. If you acted like a decent fellow then I would assume you would be open to more messages from me. Why would I give you another reason to call me a troll again? 
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff;=prev&oldid;=204600038 Nothing mysterious here, and nothing to do with me. You were reverting this editors talk page, after he has reverted. I guess you taught him that bad lesson since he did the exact same thing you did to him.  Again, nothing to do with me. 
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff;=next&oldid;=204402646 This is a simple content dispute on an article I’m much more active on than you are. Calling this harassing or stalking is absurdly ridiculous.]  
 *  No defamation at all. These are facts and I saw nothing wrong here. No, I never claim last week that he knew nothing about this. I‘ve always said I did know, but I never know anything about privacy issues. You stated that you changed your user name to your real name. So, again, how am I supposed to know this is a privacy issue? More bad faith violations, and twisting fo the truth. 
 * I adjust my comment but there is no policy violation and never any lie.again, this is not a policy violation.  and You do have a block log that is cleared. There is no lie. I know nothing about ED, either.