Talk:Frank Bisignano

What the... ???
Although First Data is a major corporation, I'm baffled how a CEO who is nearly unknown to the general public would end up with a Wiki article that is longer and more comprehensive than the Wiki article for the company he works for. Something seems fishy.


 * And not a single word about the Palantir story at JP Morgan. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/ Renek78 (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok guys, are we really just not going to do anything about this article? I'm sure Frank is a nice guy but he is not nearly noteworthy enough to warrant such a comprehensive wiki entry. Frankly the whole thing smells like a paid-for LinkedIn resume entry. --Cavgunner11 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Major edit notification
Alright, since no one else has chimed in I'm going to work on this article myself. My intent is to prune it to a reasonable level, as I do not believe that the sheer excessive detail here is necessary for someone who is basically unknown to the general public.

If anyone wishes to protest or question this action, please say so here. If no one speaks up, I'll be proceeding as described above in the near future. The edit proposal will be viewable here as a discussion item prior to any final changes. --Cavgunner11 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

July 2021 UPDATE! Ok then, it's been a while but I haven't forgotten about this article. After reviewing this, it's my opinion that the entire piece can be condensed into a few paragraphs consisting primarily of what is currently the intro section. My reasoning for this is quite simple: at the end of the day, Mr. Bisignano is simply a highly-paid businessman of semi-moderate noteworthiness within his field at most, and totally unknown to most of the general public. Furthermore, this article does indeed read like a paid-for résumé. The bewildering level of detail covering every minutia of his existence is simply unnecessary. Please note that most of these excessive edits appear to have been added by a sock-puppet account that has since been banned and deleted.

In essence, the edit I'm proposing will revert this article to a form similar to what it looked like before these suspect applausive edits.

With these points in mind, I would like to seek feedback on the proposed edit below. Yes, I realize that this is an EXTENSIVE pruning, but in my view it's one that is highly overdue.

By the way, if anyone knows how to fix the errors on the "fiservhome" and "execpayreport" references (numbers 11 and 12, below), that would be most appreciated. --Cavgunner11 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(snip - the preview was here)


 * Any comments to the suggested edit above? Any at all? I'd hate to post this only to have someone swoop in and try to revert it because they didn't comment here. --Cavgunner11 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, the article has been updated. It's interesting and illustrative, I think, that over a span of years there has been so little commentary here. Please note that references 11 and 12 are still broken. I'm certain I'm janking up the Wiki code somehow, so if anyone knows how to make them work, that would be appreciated. Cavgunner11 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)