Talk:Premier Percussion

Untitled

John Bonham's first drumset was a Premier but not brand new.

martin lopez formerly of opeth used premier drums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.5.153 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy Drums

This is factually correct, it should not be removed due to lack of references. There is a link to scanned brochures in external links which proves this. The template should be removed. Stix67 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs section on history

Needs section on history and importance and relevance of Premier drums to British pop music in the 60's, 70s and 80s. With references. Stix67 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

More Artists

Many British drummers have played Premier drums at some point in their careers. More artists with links and citations needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix67 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible AI generated text

Hi - I've added the AI generated template here. This is only a suspicion and not proof, but this (and by extension other edits by this user]] demonstrate strong indicators of possible LLM use and thus need review for hallucinations, sourcing issues, editorializing/original research and other tone problems, and such. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gnomingstuff - thank you for raising this.

I’m commenting from a declared COI account (I’ve disclosed my employment with Gear4music on my user page). The company has reviewed this article internally for accuracy, tone, and sourcing, and we’re confident that it complies with Wikipedia’s content and sourcing policies.

I understand the concern about possible AI-generated text and appreciate the caution. To the best of our knowledge, the article is based entirely on published, verifiable information and has been reviewed to ensure neutrality and accuracy.

If there are any specific areas that still seem non-compliant or could be improved, I’d be happy to review or suggest edits accordingly. Many thanks. Tonewoodtext (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The question is not whether you "understand the concern." The question is: Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Wikipedia policy does not require editors to disclose whether AI tools were used; content is assessed on its verifiability, neutrality, and sourcing rather than on the method by which the text was drafted (per WP:V and WP:VERIFY).

As noted earlier, the company has reviewed the article for accuracy, tone, and sourcing, and all material is based on published, verifiable information. If there are specific sentences that you believe do not meet content policy, please identify them and I will be happy to address them individually.

Regarding the maintenance tag: as a COI editor I will not remove it myself, but I do welcome review from uninvolved editors. If the tag is intended to highlight particular content issues, it would be helpful to point to the exact passages so they can be examined appropriately. Tonewoodtext (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove “This article may incorporate text from a large language model” tag

As mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page, I've addressed all concerns raised and ensured that all material is based on published, verifiable sources.

No specific passages have been identified as non-compliant after repeated requests, and the article has been reviewed for neutrality, tone, and sourcing.

I will not remove the tag myself, but I respectfully request that an uninvolved editor assess whether the maintenance tag is still warranted. Tonewoodtext (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it's AI and thus the tag stays. Your AI responses are not helping. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to ask that you keep this discussion constructive and focused on specific, actionable content issues. Comments such as “Your AI responses are not helping” are not helpful, do not identify any policy problem, and make it more difficult to resolve the matter collaboratively.

As already stated, this article has been carefully written and reviewed for accuracy, tone, sourcing, and neutrality. There is currently no confirmed basis for treating the article as AI-generated text, and the article should be assessed against the usual Wikipedia content policies rather than being broadly tagged on suspicion alone.

If you believe there are specific passages that are non-compliant, such as unsourced claims, promotional wording, hallucinated information, original research, or neutrality issues, please identify those passages directly so they can be reviewed and addressed. Retaining a broad AI-generated-text tag without pointing to specific issues is not constructive and feels punitive rather than policy-based.

I also note from your talk page that this appears to be an issue you have raised on several other pages, including cases where AI use has been disputed or stated not to have occurred. In the absence of confirmed AI use or specific actionable content concerns here, I have removed the tag. Tonewoodtext (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)