Philip,
Although it's off-topic in this thread, I'm going to answer you just to put the question to rest -- and then ask that you create a new thread from the 1668 Thomas Bruce's profile if you'd like to discuss him further.
I've looked at the document in question on the profile for Thomas Bruce, Flesher and Brewer in Coupar Angus and see nothing out of order. The dates are present and the entry for Thomas is under the heading for December 1668. The document's exact origins are provided at the top so you can verify its provenance.
In order to read the document, you need to be experienced with historic paleography. It sounds like you aren't, which is perfectly understandable. If you'd ever like to learn, here's a good starting place: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/palaeography/
Neil isn't doing anything untoward; he simply has research expertise in some areas that you don't. That's one of the great advantages of a collaborative tree like Geni -- you get to work with highly-skilled users who have strengths in areas you might not, and who can help you develop a tree that's as accurate as possible.
If you want a tree where no one else can ever make changes to it, I would recommend using a site like MyHeritage instead. The reality is, your ancestral lines on Geni will always be subject to change based on the discovery of new information, so if it's an unpleasant experience now, it always will be. That means you may want to consider whether this is the right platform for your work.
Don't take someone else trying to help correct your tree as a personal attack. Take it as an attempt to help honor your ancestors by getting their info correct.
And now, let's return to the 1619 Thomas Bruce.