request for advice

[Emeric Deutsch]

Here are a few thoughts:
1. One has to be tough.

2. Let's not be personal (limiting to a certain person the number
of contributions).

3. List examples of types of undesirable sequences:
(a) numbers n such that n and 2n+1 belong to AXXXXXX;
(b) (3n^2-n-2)/2;
(c) numbers n such an+b is prime;
etc. etc. etc. etc.

4. Contributors should avoid as much as possible definitions
that include AXXXXXX. They should take the trouble to give a
self-contained definition and should mention AXXXXXX only in
the comments.

5. I think that prospective authors should ask themselves:

can I envisage this sequence appearing in some book or journal?

If the honest answer to this is a NO, then, with some exceptions,
the sequence should not be submitted.

Emeric



On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, N. J. A. Sloane wrote:

> Dear seqfans and editors:
>
> There is a contributor to the OEIS who in the past has sent in some interesting
> sequences, but most of his submissions are to my mind not very interesting.
>
> Two or three weeks ago, finding that I was spending all my time
> processing his sequences, which were flooding the OEIS,
> (there were a huge number of them)
> I asked him never to send in further sequences.
>
> I felt that he was trying to make the OEIS look ridiculous.
>
> He has now resumed submissions.  His latest submissions are
> of the form:
>
> Numbers n such that n and 2n+1 belong to AXXXXXX.
>
> Of course there is the potential here for 100,000 new
> sequences.
>
> Then we can have
>
> Numbers n such that n and 2n-1 belong to AXXXXXX.,
>
> another 100,000, and then
>
> Numbers n such that n and n^2+1 belong to AXXXXXX.,
>
> another 100,000, and so on.
>
> My question is, would you please tell me what I should do?
>
> I will keep track of the number of replies that I get that say,
> this is just fine, accept them all
> and those that say
> enough already, pipe his submissions to /dev/null
>
> Thanks
>
> NJAS
>