This site is supported by donations to The OEIS Foundation.
Complaints About Editing
This is the Contents
Introduction
- If you feel that your proposed contribution to the OEIS was unfairly edited, you can write something below.
- Please give as many details as possible.
- For example, you might say: "On Jan 01 2011 I submitted a formula for sequence A123456. It was deleted by the editors — why?"
- However, before you post anything here, check the History tab for the sequence, because the "pink" discussion boxes probably already explain the reasons for the editors' decision.
- Remember also that when you registered with the OEIS, you agreed that your proposed contributions could be edited, altered or deleted — see The OEIS Contributor's License Agreement.
- If you are still unhappy, you can appeal to our Ombudsman. Hilarie Orman has volunteered to serve as an ombudsman to help resolve disputes with contributors. She can be reached through her user page on this wiki.
Complaints
- The Mathematica code of A005811; though inspiring, does not produce all terms to the sequence. I fixed this error by appending a 0 at the beginning of the Table, and added more code to show explicitly that A005811 is the "Recursion depth of A035327". There was no reason to delete added code, as it is very similar to the original maple code published (probably in 1999). Comments from Joerg and Kevin were not helpful, but actually pejorative, confusing, and ultimately harmful. If we can't get past this issue, I can't help edit A043555 with dragon pictures. Bill Gosper said it was news to him, so we might be the first to have noticed. Bradley Klee (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2024 (EDT)
Reply from N. J. A. Sloane 11:59, 12 July 2024 (EDT): The MMA code for A005811 looks OK to me. They probably started at n=1 because the value of a(0) could be 0 or 1, depending on which definition is used. This was hardly an error. Your program was referred to as "clumsy", and you must admit that the other programs there were shorter and clearer.
- Please check A060851: I'm not unhappy with the rejection after a suggested cross-reference triggered some unclear edits, but an E.g.f. contributed by another user was also lost (=reset by the rejection). –Frank Ellermann (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2020 (EDT)
2018 – 2019
Again, my A319504 waits one month for rejecting/approving:( Zak Seidov Oct 21 2018. It is more than month that nobody rejects/approves my A317743. I wrote to some Editor-in-Chairs with no results. Plz help! Zak Seidov Sep 21 2018
Reply from N. J. A. Sloane 16:38, 21 September 2018 (EDT): The last change you made yourself was yesterday, September 20, 2018. That is only one day ago.
User:Peter Kourzanov submitted a sequence. It was submitted twice; the last versions of these two submissions before deletion are https://oeis.org/history/view?seq=A285553&v=36 and https://oeis.org/history/view?seq=A280659&v=46 . For the most clear definition of the sequence, see the last paragraph of the Example section in the second submission; for practical recipe for calculating terms, see programs. The sequence was rejected: first time as too obscure, second time just because it was a repost. However, I believe that the sequence is interesting and well-defined. Note the formula a(n) = A003188(A003602(n)), which reveals a nontrivial connection between these two sequences and the nested square root expressions for cosines of dyadic rationals. Also, it has a program and an external reference (although that reference doesn't contain the sequence itself). For more information, see both submissions (they differ very much) and pink box comments to them, especially to the second one.
I don't deny that both submissions were obscure and hard to understand. However, I believe that this sequence deserves more accurate consideration and eventual inculding into OEIS. I have no connection to its author.
--Andrey Zabolotskiy 20:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Response: In my judgement (confirmed by another Editor in Chief) this sequence was not of sufficient interest to be included in the OEIS. N. J. A. Sloane 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't understand the reasons. Please note that in all previous cases that were considered on this page, the reasons for considering a sequence uninteresting were given. I gave reasons why this is interesting (an unexpected connection to other sequences). Also, I don't see any public explicit statement made by any other Editor in Chief that this sequence is uninteresting. --Andrey Zabolotskiy 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- This sequence may seem to be artificial and hence uninteresting because of rather long and clumsy description of the generation of terms. However, the sequense is based on a single elegant theorem: 2*cos(Pi*n/2^m) can always be expressed as nested square roots of 2 with some sequence of signs at square roots. The rest of the term generating algorithm simply describes a specific way of conversion of a sequence of signs to a binary number and then to decimal, which is common in the OEIS (see A003188, A003100, A072762, A218614, A276690, etc). --Andrey Zabolotskiy 23:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Response: The sequence in question had a very involved definition, and the comments made things even less clear. Furthermore, considered purely as a sequence of integers, the sequence appears random. The chance of anyone searching the OEIS for this sequence is zero.
Certainly there is a mathematical definition for it, but not every sequence with a mathematical definition deserves a place in the OEIS. Otherwise there would be an astronomical number of entries in the database, which would make it impossible to use. The editors have to exercise judgement. Every day we reject many submissions, as you can see from looking at the wiki page of Deleted Sequences. And we do not expect to have to justify our decisions. Both you and the author should read the OEIS Contributor's License Agreement.
The sequence is rejected as "not of general interest".
As an Editor in Chief, my decision is final.
N. J. A. Sloane 03:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
PS I did not appreciate your challenging my assertion that another Editor-in-Chief agreed with my opinion.
2011 – 2016
Authors
- The initial version of this page (with an empty list of complaints!) was created by N. J. A. Sloane (Editor-in-Chief), Feb 02 2011
