Accommodating ONE Geni-User

It is very, very frustrating that, with no evidence supporting
1) that Herbert Bloom was the son of Jacob and Toba Rosenberg
2) that Kamm was the birth surname of Herbert's first wife, Frieda
3) that Mary was the daughter of Herbert's first wife, Frieda - and there is evidence to the contrary
4) that Herbert Bloom's wife Frieda was the same Frieda who married Emil Kamm - and there is evidence to the contrary, plus an active Geni-User related to the Frieda who married Emil Kamm (that Frieda's second great niece) who knows the were not the same Frieda
--That Geni insists all of those be shown on Geni to accommodate one Geni-User.

So now we have
Herbert = Herbert (Herzl) Bloom
and
Herbert's duplicate Private who apparently has a child
Private who is a
Partner of Freida Kamm = Freida Kamm and <private> Siegel = Private
And That Frieda makes THREE. Frieda's who are currently shown as the Daughter of Rafael Kamm and Fagel (Tand) Kamm
even tho there should only be ond, and that one with one husband only, that being Emil Kamm

Did a search on David Walter Bloom - whom this Geni-User believes is his biological paternal grandfather --
turns out. that the private> Bloom who is a
Partner of Freida Kamm and <private> Siegel is David Walter Bloom.
That would be a Duplicate of David Walter Bloom who is Child of Herbert (Herzl) Bloom and Freida (Kamm) Bloom and. Spouse of Clara (Ferrin) Bloom -- but this Geni-User's re-doing of him to accord with this Geni-User's theory of something

This would make one heck of a soap opera.

The Rose shown on Census Records, etc. to be the sister of this Geini-User's father is Rose Nachman (Rose (Siegel) Nachman)
The Rose showing now as his paternal grandmother is, as I mention above, Private - who comes up on a search for Rose Siegel. She is "Child of <private> Siegel and <private> Siegel
Partner of <private> Bloom
Parent of <private> Siegel"
So we have another duplicate created by this user to show what he thinks her biological lineage is based on 1) his belief Rose is his father's biological mother AND 2) what he thinks his DNA matches and/or his wishes show and what therefore his biological lineage must be.(according to him)

The paternal grandfather of the Rose Siegel duplicate/alternate he created for his biological paternal grandmother is A. Siegel (A. Siegel) whose profile he created on Nov. 2 - and who is also probably an alternate for a profile that already exists.
Currently his immediate family is only: Father of <private> Siegel

That is Private (Geni ID 6000000179761229837) whose Immediate Family is:
1) Child of A. Siegel
2) Spouse of <private> Siegel = Private (Geni ID 6000000179760017883) who is
Child of <private> Bloom and <private> Kamm
Spouse of <private> Siegel (Geni ID 6000000179761229837)
Parent of <private> Siegel (Geni ID 6000000179761231835)
3) Parent of <private> Siegel = (Geni ID 6000000179761231835), [not surprisingly, her child = child of her spouse] the profile who shows as the Geni-Users biological paternal grandmother)

AH - and now the profile for A. Siegel has been deleted.

But now he has added Rafael Kamm (Rafael Kamm Geni ID 6000000179901561835) as the son of
Genendel Glucklich (Genendel Glucklich Geni ID 6000000179901777822)
Wife of Private (Salomon Kamm Geni ID 6000000179901614863)
Daughter of Mendel Glucklich and Blume Glucklich
all of which he just added today, and all except Blume are duplicates of Profiles that already existed.

YOU SCREWED UP ON MY FAMILY TREE

Private User - I believe you are referring to one very easy to reverse change I made.
If I am right as to what change you are referring to, I did not realize it would upset you since the person you said was your biological paternal grandfather still went thru that line
And I have no idea why you did not simply reverse it if it was upsetting to you.
If I am wrong, then I have no idea what you are referring to.

I am NOT biological paternal grandfather Jacob Siegel period

Geni's policy has always been - if there are disagreements, evidence is to be presented until it is clear which is correct.

I cannot imagine why it was decided this long-standing very basic tenet of Geni does not apply to you
and you should be allowed to enter whatever you want without providing any evidence at all on the profile, in documents attached to the profile, or in Public Discussion except assertions about DNA which are not based on any form of DNA analysis any of us had ever heard of and you refused to give any references for or to explain.

Do you have any idea why they are violating that policy for you?
Are you the only one or??

I have DNA evidence from AncestryDNA matches cousins. I was done with Leslie and Jess for DNA analysis with DNA painter.

The DNA details you provided from Ancestry for shared DNA between you and Jess and Alexander and etc. are all compatible with the lineage the documents show.
See https://www.geni.com/discussions/239445?msg=1514013

If there is DNA evidence supporting any of your claims, you have failed to present it.
Your made comments referring to inlaw paths on Geni as if they were useful for proving how matches were biologically connected, which they are not.
You made comments about matches in common, apparently without realizing that
being from an endogamous population, matches in common do not prove anything.
But you have provided zero DNA evidence supporting your statement.

>>>

One can only use DNA Painter with regard to sites with a Chromosome Browser. So not with AncestryDNA because it does not have a Chromosome Browser.
Did you create a Profile for yourself and enter the Chromosome Browser info for Jess and Leslie (from a site other than Ancestry) on it and then stop?
Is that what you meant by " I was done with Leslie and Jess for DNA analysis with DNA painter." -
Or what is it saying?

I already submitted a ticket for my DNA evidence last week.