A bit belated warning, however it stands true; your recent editing history at Prespa agreement shows that you were engaged in an WP:EDITWAR; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that the changes you are trying to make are against the WP:CONSENSUS. For this reason, I will kindly ask that you familiarize with Wikipedia's guidelines and especially WP:MOSMAC before attempting any further changes to the article. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't call it an edit war yet, but you are right, we were getting close, that's why I halted, as you must have noticed. However, I wonder why you think it is against the consensus? I have read carefully the WP:MOSMAC, which you contribuited to, and here it states that where necessary an explanatory note such as "(now Northern Macedonia)" may be added. On the Presba Agreement talk page there is a contribuition by a user, I agree with: "Well, whether you are wrong or not: the name in the treaty upon signing is carefully avoided, stating it is the "party admitted to the UN under resolution 47/225"". It's probably wisest to keep the name North Macedonia here (the name of the country presently), with a note that it was constitutionally called Republic of Macedonia at the time... What do you think?" L.tak (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC) I would be interested on your take on this. User:Ιππώναξ
- The "(now Northern Macedonia)" is for cases where there is no other mention of the name change for the country in the starting paragraph (see for example Ohrid Agreement). However, in Prespa Agreement's article, there is already a mention of the name change in the starting paragraph, at the following sentence: "
It replaces the Interim Accord of 1995 and sees the Republic of Macedonia's constitutional name changed to the Republic of North Macedonia erga omnes.
" --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)