Robertinventor/Wikipedia mistakes or omissions

From Doomsday debunked

< User:Robertinventor

As I browse I notice mistakes and omissions in Wikipedia. Normally I'd just fix them or add a note to the talk page. Can't any more, since I'm indef blocked. But I might as well take a note of them in case I ever am unblocked. I can appeal six months from now but don't currently plan to do so. It's a lot of fuss, unlikely to succeed, and though I'd like to continue to help with the project, if they don't want me, it gives me more time for other things.

The list since I was blocked includes minor fixes I would normally do without first mentioning on the talk page.

It's also useful as it gives an idea of how many mistakes one notices while browsing Wikipedia if you are a regular user who also checks the information you find there - usually I notice several mistakes a week, most minor, but occasional major bloopers.

This doesn't include the errors in the astrobiology, Buddhism, and microtonal music topic areas - too numerous to list individually. I commented about a few of the microtonal pages needing fixed in the microtonal project proposal before I was blocked.

Noticed after I was blocked[edit | edit source]

Would post to talk page first[edit | edit source]

  • Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_efforts says "in addition, the warning time is unlikely to be more than a few months", misparaphrases source, the source used says "warning period for a potential impact from a long period comet may be as short as a year"[1] so a year as likely shortest warning period, not a few months as likely longest - and that is from 2008, warning periods increased since then.
  • Ozone#Physical properties - Colour of ozone - only one cite and minimal info. For better cites and much more info see my What is the colour of ozone
  • Cites Kos Telegram - it's a fake news site. Would post to talk page to alert people that it uses a fake site as a source.
  • Wikipedia:Gamma-ray_burst#GRB_candidates_in_the_Milky_Way "Knowledge of GRBs, however, is from metal-poor galaxies of former epochs of the universe's evolution, and it is impossible to directly extrapolate to encompass more evolved galaxies and stellar environments with a higher metallicity, such as the Milky Way." - This is about a decade out of date. The closest gamma ray burst observed was 140 million light years away, not the billions of light years away implied by "former epoch".
  • Wikipedia:Kevin_Anderson_(scientist) A bit out of date, more recent paper on his current views: [2]
  • Wikipedia:Dew_point - says "When the temperature is below the freezing point of water, the dew point is called the frost point, as frost is formed rather than dew" - not correct, frost point and dew point can sometimes differ
  • Wikipedia:History_of_SpaceX doesn't mention the first three rocket failures
  • Wikipedia:Lunar_theory Doesn't talk about variation in ellipticity of the lunar orbit
  • Wikipedia:2010_AU118 NEODyS lists the nominal 20 October 2020 Earth distance as 3 AU (450,000,000 km; 280,000,000 mi).[7]

- seems strange

Minor, or expect no discussion, would just fix on the spot[edit | edit source]

Corrections I suggested on talk pages before I was blocked - not yet done[edit | edit source]

It is very rare for any other editor to respond to these talk page suggestions to fix an issue - I normally would go back and fix it after the mention but I had a lot on last year, and I have a backlog going back a year of things I never got around to fixing before I was blocked.

Suggested corrections with no response[edit | edit source]

Implemented fixes after talk page mention[edit | edit source]

Other editor implemented suggested fix[edit | edit source]

Other editor thinks shouldn't do edit[edit | edit source]

Other editor reverted edit[edit | edit source]

  • Wikipedia:Talk:WR_104#Not_going_to_hit_Earth_-_pretty_much_certain_now - later in the page they link to the Universe Today article "WR 104 Won't Kill Us After All" and summarize it accurately. I added a short sentence summary to the lede. Never noticed that another editor removed my summary 'correcting' it from "However spectroscopic observations now strongly suggest that it is tilted at an angle of 30°-40° and so any gamma ray burst can't hit us" to "Scientists currently believe the odds of WR 104 posing a risk to be small" based on this article [12]
  • But this may need checking, see [13] [14]

Other editor said to go ahead and do it (but only noticed after block)[edit | edit source]

Discussed to some extent, no conclusion about what to do, would need to resume discussion or start new thread[edit | edit source]