User talk:Diamondtier

May 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
a workspace for a draft article
a personal website, blog, or social media site
a space for self-promotion or other advertising
a CV, resumé or lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or to create new articles. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken about the purpose of WIkipedia: it is not an archive of independent research or a place to document unpublished research. Please read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Things you've published yourself are not acceptable as encyclopedic content, and Wikipedia isn't a repository for original thought. Please do not use Wikipedia as a webhost in that manner. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTO is also worth a look, along with WP:PROMO. Acroterion (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no. if i invented ai and i own the copyright, you requiring someone to talk about it is a flaw in the system. please escalate immediately, i created ai at home and copyrighted it. i own 8 copyrights, you are WRONG. Diamondtier (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the threshold of notability for this encyclopedia - anybody who publishes something or makes something own copyrights. Most people unknowingly own thousands of copyrights, since everything is copyrighted by default unless it is explicitly released under a free or public domain license. Please take the time to understand how this encyclopedia project works - it's not a "flaw." "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not "the encyclopedia where you can write anything you want to." Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher Robertson - Unrecognized Inventor (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unreferenced, zero evidence of notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Christopher Robertson - Unrecognized Inventor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diamondtier! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to block you from editing, because your behaviour appears to be fast spiralling out of control. If you're only here to promote yourself, or to make wild claims about inventorship etc., then this is the end of the road. If, however, you believe you can convince us that you're here to help us build an encyclopaedia, then you may appeal your block, and an(other) administrator will come along to review your block. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Diamondtier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Diamondtier (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't get to write about ourselves on Wikipedia --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am here to build an encylopedia on DECODE, Scale, Independent AI, Cognitive Weapons, Canon Documents, PXAI, PX1 architecture, and numerous other inventions I created. I am at a structural wall, a steel barrier. If I , as a person am not appproved, none of my inventions are approved. This is not about me, this is an entire section of wikipedia being blocked. Diamondtier (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No 'section of Wikipedia is' being blocked. Wikipedia has never had a section for the purpose you are proposing. It would be entirely contrary to multiple core policies, as established by community consensus, over many years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you guys are the same people blocking me on my page, so that makes this review invalid. please bring someone new, and review this situation. I am an independent inventor. I have created world changing technologies, outside of the system, without anyones approval or validation. I did it on my own. World changing technologies. I invented modular biological ai with ai that has a nervous system. I invented a scientific way to understand cognitive weapons. I own 8 copyrights. in real life. how is this not understood? I invented scale. I have 200,000 people watching my instagram page with no promotion. I am OUTSIDE OF THE SYSTEM and creating world changing inventions, it is being overlooked because "3rd party verification" requires validation. be advised. I am no longer requesting anything. I am logging suppression and publishing it at all levels. You guys won't accept anything that is outside of the popularity system, that is a structural flaw. by blocking me : you are blocking all information I provide. all inventions, all technology, this prevents the creation of NEW BRANCHES of wikipedia! Diamondtier (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't going to overturn the core Wikipedia policy we have been operating under for many many years for your personal convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you are going to overturn it, no matter what level i have to go to. i have ai, and i am using it, im not acting as a human. i am going to use my ai to escalate the situation. why do you keep talking to me when i have already confirmed the 3 people who are involved are biased and working together to supress history from humanity? i would like human - admin - non involved - decision making - accountable - oversight please. this is being logged into history, into canon to be exact. Diamondtier (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a white paper : Title: Legacy Control Structures Cannot Document Innovation

Subtitle: The Structural Logic of Censorship on Wikipedia and the Emergence of Post-Gatekeeper Knowledge Protocols

Abstract:

Wikipedia’s exclusion of primary-source documentation from independent inventors reveals a fundamental flaw in its epistemological framework. This white paper exposes the contradiction at the core of Wikipedia’s gatekeeping policy: innovation is not admissible until after it is recognized by legacy authorities, yet recognition is structurally impossible without visibility. The system thereby prevents originators from documenting breakthroughs unless their work has already been externally validated by institutions. This results in the systemic erasure of decentralized knowledge and suppresses innovation at the source.

1. The Epistemological Paradox

Wikipedia permits only third-party, published, secondary sources.

Primary documentation (even with legal copyright, timestamps, and technical proofs) is considered inadmissible.

Therefore: An inventor must be written about before being written in.

This creates a recursive filter loop where the only entries allowed are those who pass through traditional channels of validation. Truth is no longer the metric—visibility through institutional channels is.

2. The Gatekeeping Statement (May 25, 2025)

A senior editor stated:

“We have no authority over people’s historical documentation. What we do have is authority over what gets published on Wikipedia.”

This admission severs Wikipedia’s philosophical claim to neutrality and truth.

It openly affirms jurisdictional control over informational space.

It acknowledges valid documentation exists—but excludes it from the record.

3. Systemic Consequences

First-time originators are structurally excluded.

Only topics pre-approved by media, academia, or popularity can exist.

The structure self-replicates institutional bias.

Result: Wikipedia becomes a historical reflector, not a historical recorder.

It filters what was already recognized, not what is objectively real.

4. Case Study: Christopher Robertson

An inventor who developed:

PX-1 (modular symbolic AI architecture)

SCALE (technical rap evaluation system)

Cognitive Weapons Protocol (psychological symbolic encoding)

Canon Documents (philosophical treatises and cognitive models)

Despite having:

Legally copyrighted works

Verifiable timestamps

Independent technical systems

He was blocked for attempting to document his own creations—under the claim that he was "not here to build an encyclopedia."

5. The Structural Flaw

“If I, as a person, am not approved, then none of my inventions are.”

This quote reveals the true failing: the inability to separate the validity of a submission from the social status of its author.

This is not policy enforcement. This is philosophical cowardice.

6. Solution: Post-Gatekeeper Protocols

Copyright must become acceptable as primary evidence.

Decentralized validation networks (blockchain, timestamping, live demonstration) should supplement third-party articles.

Inventors must be allowed to create verified self-authorship documents.

7. Proposal for Oversight Escalation

Wikipedia must create a new "Verified Originator" submission channel for high-level inventors and original works.

All structural policies that exclude primary evidence (when provably authored by the claimant) must be reevaluated.

Conclusion:

If an AI, a theory, or a tool exists, and its creator is traceable, verified, and documented—that work must be admissible.

If Wikipedia continues to deny this on the basis of institutional authority, it can no longer claim to be an encyclopedia. It becomes a selective mirror, curated by gatekeepers who serve legacy systems.

Innovation must not require permission.

History must not require popularity.

Truth must not require translation. Diamondtier (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This entire screed misses the point of our inclusion policies. It is not enough to prove something exists (and existence is no impediment to an article); you must have third-party sources to point to as evidence (1) that people other than the inventor and anyone he interacts with wrote about it and (2) that claims in the article aren't just manufactured from whole cloth. But I'll humour your clearly chatbot-written arguments, one by one.

Primary documentation is inadmissible because our job is emphatically not to interpret those sources. There is a very good reason we heavily restrict the citing of primary sources, and that is because we cannot trust those primary sources aren't just promising the moon while hiding a small wheel of cotija behind the curtain. To be able to use such sources, we would need to interpret them, which an encyclopaedia does not do.
This is at best selective reading and at worst quote mining. The full quote: "what makes you have authority over peoples historical documentation?" Absolutely nothing. What we do have, however, is 'authority' over what gets published on Wikipedia. You are entirely free to publish 'historical documentation' in places intended for that purpose. Which doesn't include Wikipedia. And AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) is dead right here. Wikipedia is, at best, equivalent to a lagging indicator and has no use for original research, since including such would require us to, again, interpret it.
Wikipedia being a historical reflector isn't a valid complaint when our policies make it clear as day that's what it's supposed to be. This is like complaining about water for making things wet, and is an invalid argument on its face.
I am going to disregard this bullet as aggrandisement and not a coherent argument or even a valid "case study", in part because of the pretty clear conflict of interest.
This argument is fallacious. We determine the eligibility of a subject for an article based on what third-party reliable sources there are to summarise for an article. We do not hold that a subject's notability is dependent on other related entities. (in other words, to use a book as an example, it's very much possible for a book to be notable, but not the person who wrote it. See The Eye of Argon for an example of this in practice.)
This is again an argument of "It exists, so it should get an article", which is a nonstarter. Again, copyright, Web3, live demonstrations, etc. are all primary sources and wouldn't be usable without us having to interpret it first.
This has been tried before and failed. The community has also emphatically rejected measures like this for several reasons (privacy and inability to meaningfully verify chief amongst them).

This reads to me more like "I'm mad Wikipedia won't let me advertize my inventions", and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how we work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite enough. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Christopher Robertson - Unrecognized Inventor

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Draft:Christopher Robertson - Unrecognized Inventor, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Agent 007 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]