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