::::Dear Floydian - I didn’t just drop from the sky, I got involved when the scope was being expanded because I am very interested in the medical uses of silver other than people drinking the stuff. That’s not illegal. 
 ::::Based on the two history files, I made my first contribution on the talk page on 27 October, while Zara made her first contribution on the talk page only on 31 October – directly after my second contribution. I made my first contribution to the article itself on 31 October. Zara made her first contribution to the article also on 31 October, but about 13 hours after my first contribution, and her very first contribution was to revert my earlier edit. Her major rewrite only happened thereafter, under an {inuse} tag (twice), and I immediately queried the lack of balance in the final product – just a few hours after the end of her rewrite. You could easily check this for yourself, if you really want to know the actual facts. 
 ::::Third, I am not the only editor who contested Zara’s preferred version – per the history file MastCell made several corrections along the way, before I came back on-line, although Zara promptly undid much of that work as well.  
 ::::Fourth, after Zara’s series of “bold edits” the article was still heavily weighted towards colloidal silver, and needed more material on the other medical uses to balance it up correctly. Adding extra content is what Wikipedia is all about – especially since the scope of the article had just been broadened by consensus. You yourself imported extra material under the “Ionic Silver” heading, which is useful stuff but which needed to be integrated and duplications needed to be removed. Do you not agree? And since that work got mass-reverted, it needs to be integrated again and duplications need to be removed again - as soon as the protection is lifted. 
 ::::Fifth, a mass-revert is a blatant contravention of WP:RV, especially when the contested aspects were not huge and a simple modification or two would suffice. Repeated mass reverts are even more inappropriate. You surely know this already.   
 ::::Six, the sources I quoted were chosen to support particular points, namely that certain stuff actually exists and certain things are actually being done by certain people. If you merely want to “prove” that a product exists there is no harm in citing a supplier thereof, especially if the product is FDA approved; it only becomes a contravention when you use a supplier’s website to describe the properties or effectiveness thereof. See WP:V and WP:SELFPUB. I don’t believe I crossed that line, but I have stated repeatedly that I am happy to correct references if needed. If you are concerned that I have been violating other policies, please point them out specifically. 
 ::::