Template talk:IP

i disapprove of this. you should not be telling people to create accounts, Xbony2. if someone wants anon edits they should be able to do it without people telling them otherwise. especially now the accounts are integrated with curse, more ppl will have a reason to refuse or not bother creating accounts.
 * What? This template doesn't force people to create accounts; it just encourages them to. If they don't to want to use an account, that's fine, and it's none of my business. And I'm serious about signing yourself- this wiki isn't a playground for you to run around like a kid in. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This rfd rejection is made in a conflict of interest. I am requesting a review by someone other than Xbony2, the so called creator of this template. New users are most vulnerable to stuff like this. The image is a giant problem. It is presented in a sarcastic way. I am confused whether the "Cool IP award" is supposed to be a compliment or not, especially when it's created with MS Paint. You language also assumes bad faith on anon users, discouraging contribution. The problem lies in the content not the intention. You if want to encourage people to create an account. Do it in a sincere way. And as you can see, I've signed properly. That means I'm dead serious. -- 73.73.175.189 02:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interest is a fair point to undoing my rejection. To be honest, I just think this is ridiculous. You're the only person to react negatively to this template out of the, I dunno, hundreds that have seen it (well, excluding a few users who felt silly about forgetting to log in). This template is suppose to silly, and slightly sarcastic. I think it's a lot more encouraging and fun to read for IPs than a more serious "Make an account!" template.
 * This template isn't going to be deleted, btw. It's invoked on hundreds on talk pages. Reforming or depreciating it, maybe. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the entire point. New users, especially those that are sensitive to criticism, does not know they have the ability to protest. I accept changes to it, as long as it assumes good faith and does not contain sarcastic and ironic content (sarcastic language is unsuitable on the internet without proper context, and context is hard to infer with just text, please do understand that). -- 128.135.100.114 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)