[seqfan] Re: Please be polite and courteous

bradklee at gmail.com bradklee at gmail.com
Mon Jul 3 22:14:09 CEST 2017

Is there a policy for purging ?

I'm worried about precedents and slippery slope. Example: 

Kid A contributes a range of sequences with some relation to Elliptic functions. Then, someone in a higher class says: "These sequences are done better by Jacobi, Weierstrass, Bell, etc. The contributions of Kid A are _clear as mud_. We can use the same purge algorithm as we used for Smarandache, to erase all contributions from Kid A."

A purge is sometimes sold on the basis of "hygiene" or returning property and real estate to the "rightful" owner. Buyer beware!

In the case of Smarandache-integers 1,2,3,4,5... I don't think we are talking about fascist-style victimization when suggesting deletions. The argument against Kid A needs more scrutiny than one, possibly biased, opinion. 

If OEIS starts purging, one idea is to produce a reasonable document, in legal-language, with explicit citations, explaining the justification for a purge to the public via the wiki. This document should not be considered an authoritative proclamation, rather an entreat to oversight.



> On Jul 3, 2017, at 1:54 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson at comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm guessing NJAS's request was at least in part directed toward me concerning my recent post about Smarandache, toward whom I was not particularly kind or PG-13, which post it appears you may happily never get to read.
> At any rate, to summarize the meat of the post in less offensive terms, I am all for wiping the OEIS of any reference to Smarandache. This would at once raise the overall quality of the OEIS and assist the general readership by not pointing them toward questionable source materials.
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/

More information about the SeqFan mailing list