01:1201:12, 10 December 2012diffhist−2,925
Union security agreement
removed as per talk - no proper citations, merely a list of embedded titles lacking proper notation as to where in the work relevance to the topic might, if it existed, be found.
16:2216:22, 7 December 2012diffhist−3,563
Union security agreement
→Rationale: reads as editorial, indeed it is titled "rationale" and seeks to put forth justifications as presented by one man - this is outside our purview and not the encyclopedia's place.Tag: section blanking
16:1016:10, 7 December 2012diffhist−2,139
Right-to-work law
→Comparisons: removed "comparisons" as off-topic editorializing. As stated earlier in this very article, "Due to other similarities between states which have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; ...."Tag: section blanking
13:5313:53, 5 December 2012diffhist−10,478
PIGS (economics)
returning to encyclopedic version, op-ed is not wikipedia suitable. Previous comment to see "talk" leads only to a stale page unedited since September - as well as numerous pages of archive supporting current
01:1201:12, 10 December 2012diffhist−2,925
Union security agreement
removed as per talk - no proper citations, merely a list of embedded titles lacking proper notation as to where in the work relevance to the topic might, if it existed, be found.
16:2216:22, 7 December 2012diffhist−3,563
Union security agreement
→Rationale: reads as editorial, indeed it is titled "rationale" and seeks to put forth justifications as presented by one man - this is outside our purview and not the encyclopedia's place.Tag: section blanking
16:1016:10, 7 December 2012diffhist−2,139
Right-to-work law
→Comparisons: removed "comparisons" as off-topic editorializing. As stated earlier in this very article, "Due to other similarities between states which have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; ...."Tag: section blanking
13:5313:53, 5 December 2012diffhist−10,478
PIGS (economics)
returning to encyclopedic version, op-ed is not wikipedia suitable. Previous comment to see "talk" leads only to a stale page unedited since September - as well as numerous pages of archive supporting current