That doesn't refute my statement in any way. We're talking about diamonds vs other gemstones. Had you said "gemstone X is valued more than diamonds both in monetary and world-wide cultural sense, here is a source", I might agree, but all you're saying is "we are mining more diamonds than other gemstones, and we could be mining even more but aren't". That says nothing about whether the are more gemstones out there than diamonds or not.

Imagine we had 1 billion gemstone X , 10 billion gemstone Y, and 100 billion gemstone Z, but gemstone X was the most culturally and monetarily valuable gemstone and the others were worth a fraction thereof. Gemstone X would naturally be mined more and thus be more prevalent. If you mined 1k of gemstone X and held back others from mining to control the number on the market, sure, you could say "we could mine much more, therefore it is incredibly abundant", but that would be false because Y and Z actually are the more abundant gemstones.

The article doesn't reveal any numbers whatsoever, so simply saying "it's the most abundant gemstone out there" is a valueless statement.