=='s contributions to Wikipedia== 
 *Article: Homosexuality     -     Contribution: Addition of grammar errors and anti-gay POV; no useful information added.   
 *Article: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact     -     Contribution: addition of information about "Peñon woman III."  Considerable debate about fringe research, reverting on several sides, but some changes were kept in the article after that debate concluded.   
 *Article: Cactus Hill     -     Contribution: Addition of information that appears not to be widely accepted, presented as fact.  Information is retained with the addition of a clarifying adjective. 
 *Article: Great Pyramid of Giza     -     Contribution: Reinterpretation and removal of a source.  Much arguing on talk page about sources.  Contributions still in place. 

 Okay, I'm satisfied that you're making enough useful contributions that it isn't necessary for me to permanently block you myself right now, as I thought it might be when I looked at your edits to Crop circle and the debate you're having there.  However, you need to be very cautious about avoiding adding your own opinions to the encyclopedia, about you also need to remember that an encyclopedia article should communicate the consensus of the best available sources - it isn't a place where fringe theories need to be given much weight, except to explain what those theories are and why they aren't currently accepted.  You might think about improving articles which aren't the subjects of so much fringe research.  There are lots of Football team articles that are barely more than stubs that need to be fleshed out, for example, and of course List of Irish cheeses still has many redlinks where articles need to be created.  I suggest you just steer clear of the fringe history and pseudoscience and find areas that are interesting to you where you can agree with the current consensus on what is true.  That ought to save you a lot of stress. -  ·