Talk:Vermont Mozart Festival

message: The following section has been removed multiple times, I thought I would see what others thought before restoring it again. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying very hard, but I confess without much success, to avoid the conclusion that someone is attempting to censor the page. My personal feeling is that it is solid information which cites a relatively reliable online source, and should therefore stay. If anyone feels that the page "lacks balance" as a result, they are of course free to restore it by making similarly authoritative contributions. --Stephen Burnett 17:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is trying to make the article about two people. The problem with the festival is that the musicians wanted more than the public was willing to pay, requiring that the festival be underwritten (as indeed is most cultural stuff). But saying it all boiled down to two people, is simply WP:OR IMO. I also think you should remove names from the above since these are living people. IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Production costs (including labor) being higher than what customers are willing to pay is pretty widespread, hence advertising in commercial operations TV/radio etc. so management does matter.  Having said that, I agree on the living people context, and so removed the names from the above quote. (They'd been removed from the article some time ago.) ―MJBurrage(T•C) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted section

message: Despite the Festival's ongoing popularity and acclaim—it is routinely selected by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce as one of the state's top ten events—the organization has throughout its history faced significant financial obstacles.  This is not an uncommon situation in the arts world by any account. But because of their love for the festival and their long-standing relationship with the organization, many of the Festival's performers play for considerably less than their usual fees.  Likewise, the Festival benefits from a large and fiercely dedicated volunteer staff whose tasks include ushering, stubbing tickets, and facilitating parking. All this is backed by a growing base of financial support from individuals and corporations in the region.
In early 2005, newly hired Executive Director ... announced that the Festival had accumulated approximately $140,000 in debt—enough to put the Festival's continued existence in  jeopardy.  Many Festival supporters responded with gifts; and in the two seasons under ...'s leadership, 65% of that debt was eliminated.  In March 2007, ... resigned, citing ‘differences’ with the board.Hallenbeck, Brent.  Vermont Mozart director resigns; ‘differences’ cited Burlington Free Press (April 3, 2007)  The former Director of Development & Public Relations—assumed ...'s position as Executive Director, working to continue to sustain and grow the festival.
</div>
:I have been trying very hard, but I confess without much success, to avoid the conclusion that someone is attempting to censor the page. My personal feeling is that it is solid information which cites a relatively reliable online source, and should therefore stay. If anyone feels that the page "lacks balance" as a result, they are of course free to restore it by making similarly authoritative contributions. --Stephen Burnett 17:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is trying to make the article about two people. The problem with the festival is that the musicians wanted more than the public was willing to pay, requiring that the festival be underwritten (as indeed is most cultural stuff). But saying it all boiled down to two people, is simply WP:OR IMO. I also think you should remove names from the above since these are living people. IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Production costs (including labor) being higher than what customers are willing to pay is pretty widespread, hence advertising in commercial operations TV/radio etc. so management does matter.  Having said that, I agree on the living people context, and so removed the names from the above quote. (They'd been removed from the article some time ago.) ―MJBurrage(T•C) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial sustainability

message: :Image:Vtmozart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just fix logo FUR rather than try to delete them. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vtmozart.jpg