This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
About these  edits: for reasons of reader friendliness / ergnonomics, navboxes should not contain links that are mere section redirects, when the full target article already has its separate entry in the navbox. If a reader is on the page History of the Republic of Macedonia and sees a link to "Ancient history" in the navbox, they will naturally expect to be taken to a separate article with more information. If they click on that link and find themselves back on the same page, only some paragraphs down (where they can't even see the page title to verify they are still on the same page), it will be highly confusing to them.
That said, Mactruth, if you see somebody has objections against your edits and you don't understand those objections, it is your task to initiate a discussion on talk, rather than mechanically edit-war your version back in. You are back to your old disruptive habits, and probably will have to be sanctioned again soon if you don't mend your ways. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
How are my recent edits wrong? All I did was add Krusevo Republic and remove Ohrid Agreement. Krusevo Republic was a government precursor to Macedonia, and Ohrid Agreement is within the article 2001 insurgency in Republic of Macedonia. And honestly Future, how about you become unbiased for once? You've already been punished for your actions in the past, using select sources to make Macedonians look bad while dis-allowing other sources shows what is going on here. Mactruth (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
And honestly, how am I supposed to contribute the Macedonian side of the story when every source used by Macedonians on wikipedia, biased AND unbiased, are removed by Bulgarians and Greeks. Maybe you should do your job and make sure those sources aren't removed for the wrong reasons. But you don't do you? Mactruth (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Pathetic. Stop whining, start discussing actual edits. What on earth has your rant here to do with the point I made above? Fut.Perf.☼ 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Pathetic. Stop whining" is not constructive neither in debate nor discussion. It is simply your negative attitude towards Macedonians showing through. My "rant", as you may call it, is about allowing Bulgarian and Greek sources to make up most of Macedonia related articles. On top of that you don't ensure Macedonian sources are used in MACEDONIAN articles, so how am I supposed to discuss edits when their is an AGENDA on Wikipedia? Do your job instead of judging. Mactruth (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And of course that Ohrid Agreement shouldn't be removed. It has it's own article and of course it's part of the history of the country. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica
Shouldn't you put link to the region Macedonia in the section Other? It is very important fact, the country Macedonia is part of the history of the region Macedonia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
PS: And Paeonia as well, since it overlaps Macedonian's territory.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Paeonia, Ancient Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rome, Byzantine and Illyria also overlaps Macedonian territory at some point, so there's no point in adding Paeonia. Mactruth (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"Pathetic. Stop whining" is not constructive neither in debate nor discussion. It is simply your negative attitude towards Macedonians showing through. My "rant", as you may call it, is about allowing Bulgarian and Greek sources to make up most of Macedonia related articles, without contest. On top of that you don't ensure Macedonian or neutral sources that are "pro-Macedonian" (as Bulgarians and Greeks call it) are used in MACEDONIAN articles, so how am I supposed to discuss edits when their is an AGENDA on Wikipedia? Do your job instead of judging, when you consistently question Macedonian edits while ignoring Bulgarian and Greek edits what are we supposed to think? It doesn't help that you are obviously "PhilHellene" as your profile demonstrates. Mactruth (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Job? And I'd better not endeavour on what "Phi-Helene" should mean. --LaveolT 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
My comments are not directed to you and as such your comments will not be answered. Mactruth (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
We need to clarify the question, and to reach a consensus, what part of the history of the area of present -day Republic of Macedonia, which gained independence in 1991 for the first time, to be included in this template. Paeonia, Macedon, Dardania, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Bulgarian and Serbian Empires also overlaped Republic Macedonia's territory at some point of the history. Jingiby (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)