In fact, the grandparent comment is an example of one of the biases listed there. :-)

Personally I see this list as not necessarily complete. For instance, as I see it, the term 'moral hazard' is as valid as 'gambler's fallacy' as a cognitive bias, however, I would not dare to edit the page and add it in.

Another example is 'wilful ignorance' - this is when trying to think about something is so mind-blowing that the mind just goes blank. Despite the name of the term this is not 'wilful' - it is subconscious. It might kick in when the world goes to war or something serious like that. This is not the same as the 'Ostrich Effect' - this is conscious ignorance, e.g. if someone asks me about what shoes they should buy next and I really cannot be bothered to think about it then I make a conscious decision to be ignorant.

I'm confused. I would have sworn that the comment was jokingly demonstrating a cognitive bias.

Skimming the list and the cites, the page seems to be combining topics from a mishmash of different domains (mixing unconscious decision biases, rhetorical fallacies, misunderstandings of statistics, heuristics, and perception/memory effects), and heavily leaning on primary rather than secondary sources.

It's certainly a list of Wikipedia pages, and the pages might be good ones, but treating the list itself as even a tentative fact about the world is probably a mistake.

It was a joke.