An interpretion of these statements would be appreciated:

1.

[first paragraph, page 3] What is 'conservation of the number of particles'?? Am I supposed to expect that outcome??

2.

[second paragraph, page 3]
What is 'short distance structure'...or the lack thereof?

3.Following these,still page 3, under the title 'Gauge Symmetries' a discussion ensues regarding non relativistic quantum mechanics but suddenly the final sentence switches to a relativistic interpretation of vector potential. What's happening here? Is the prior discussion
not relevant??

and following immediately in "Units of relativistic Quantum theory" we have this statement:

Is this considered 'relativistic'?? why would they not use
E^{2} = [pc]^{2} + m^{2}c^{4}

or do you think they are just interested in 'units'??

4. Has anyone read the whole paper...IS it worthwhile??

I haven't read the whole thing but I've glanced through it. I'd say it's unusually well written, and succeeds in describing some rather advanced topics without delving into too much mathematics.

In non-relativisitic physics, particle number is conserved. In relativistic physics, colliding 2 particles together can create more than 2 particles, because kinetic energy can be changed into matter, so particle number is not conserved.

Short distance structure means a point particle that cannot be broken into constituent parts. In quantum field theory, this means that the field is a fundamental "thing" (not made of other fields). Locality also refers to the fact that waves of the field must travel at less than the speed of light, so a disturbance at one point in space is local, since it cannot affect a far away region immediately.

He's just giving a bunch of different examples in physics of "gauge" which just means the same physics is represented by many different mathematical expressions.