Extending silly sequences

[Joshua Zucker]

I have three questions for the list:

1) If someone's submitted a sequence that I think is easy and
deserving of the "dumb" keyword, but they only gave the first few
terms, should I extend it (so at least it doesn't have the "more"
keyword, and people trying to extend sequences don't have to see it)
or should I ignore it (because I think it's not worthy of being in the
OEIS in the first place)?  So far I'm tending toward the first option,
extending lots of sequences just to get those "more" tags cleared off,
so that other people trying to extend sequences can work on the worthy
ones.  But if y'all think that extending the sequences gives them (or
their authors) more credibility, maybe I'd rather not lend my name to
that effort ... Still, since each one usually only takes me a couple
minutes to program, it seems worth it just to fill up those three
lines like NJAS wants.

2) Speaking of which, I'm teaching myself Scheme, so my programs are
in Scheme -- since that's not PARI or Maple or Mathematica, I don't
generally submit my code.  Plus it's ugly code because I'm just
learning.  Is there something I ought to do with the Scheme code?

3) In cleaning up some of the "more" sequences, I run into sequences
that I don't understand.  Usually that's because the definiton is a
bit obscure, or it's a sequence from a reference that I don't own, or
it's about mathematics that I just don't know anything about.  But
sometimes it's like A114788, which says "Second column of A113030."
for its definition.  But A113030 doesn't HAVE columns, as far as I can
understand!  This sequence, A114788, looks like it might have
something to do with
A077558 or A111679 or A095904 or A096153 but I can't figure out what
it might have to do with A113030.  Anyone have a clue?

Thanks,
--Joshua Zucker