User talk:Yablon

Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation‎
Many thanks creating for this awesome and interesting article. I cleaned it up a bit, hope it's OK. Another editor (user:Sameenahmedkhan) has inserted his own publications in this article, and other physics articles on WP, just to let you know.

Anyway best regards! ^_^ M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Kutzelnigg contribution to Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation site?
Merry X-mas Yablon. I hope you are well. I witnessed the recent skirmish between users (user:HelpUsStopSpam) and (user:TonyMath) and the outcome was the removal of an entire section citing the work of Werner Kutzelnigg in the site for the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation. The complaint made by user:HelpUsStopSpam was a claimed self-citation by user:TonyMath. Whether justified or not, the outcome was the removal of all citations to Kutzelnigg's work. One of Kutzelnigg's papers mentioned in the references has 126 citations. It would seem that Kutzelnigg was indeed critical of Moore's work but user:HelpUsStopSpam missed the point: Kutzelnigg's formulations are very useful for relativistic calculations! It seems that the area of expertise for user:HelpUsStopSpam is data mining which would explain his lack of understanding of the body of work related to the Foldy transformation. If you have no objection, I would like to restore Kutzelnigg's legacy as computationally useful Foldy "dividends" rather than alternatives.Willmann2 (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Tony, do not WP:SOCKPUPPET. Also, stop lying to us. The section was not about Kutzelnigg's work, you added him only as an alibi citation for your own work. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! Quite the stalker aren't we?  Look you idiot, I'm not User:Willmann2 and this user is only proposing to restore Kutzelnigg's citations, nobody else's.TonyMath (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)