Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-13278304-20190312012536/@comment-17389664-20190313212351

From what I can see, this conversation has followed a structure approximating this:

Tsu points out that your wiki is in violation of the Wiki's terms of use (which it is), and instructs you on how to fix it

You contest this, which is an alright thing to do. Getting defensive is natural and it's important to get elaboration on important information.

Tsu then gives more details on the specifics of it.

You find perhaps the most trivial point of the entire matter and then act like because this is potentially opinionated that the entire argument is invalid and the wiki doesn't need to reform

You then proceed to argue with Tsu about minute details which have nothing to do with the major problem at hand which is that you guys are bad at managing your wiki.