Here is a common "fishing" related to a publication in Wikipedia.. First, Wikipedia admins remove articles (or mark it for removal), then they start sending emails like this Here is the full real-life communication:
Hi [Your NAME],
I hope this message finds you well.
We are contacting you regarding your recent Wikipedia submission for Sergei V. Chekanov page. We understand that your content was not accepted during the initial review process, and we would like to assist you in refining your submission.
Our team is experienced in collaborating with contributors to improve their articles, ensuring they align with Wikipedia's guidelines. With some adjustments, your page could be ready for publication.
Thank you for your commitment to contributing to Wikipedia. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you.
Sincerely,
Lewis Martin
Then you ask about some detail and get the answer like this:
Hi,
Thanks for your response and for your offer. As you know, currently, all Wikipedia pages require submission for review before they can be published. However, I am considering direct publishing via my Special Editor account, bypassing the usual review process for Wikipedia pages.Your page did not appear to be written according to Wikipedia's standards. I will write your page from a neutral point of view and make it in a formal tone.
There is a publishing fee for the service. For the guarantee, you don't need to pay any advance fee. You only need to pay when the page is published.
Best regards,
Lewis Martin
Then you ask "how much" I need to pay: The answer:
Hello,
The publishing fee for the service is 950 USD. As I mentioned, you don't need to pay any advance fee. You only need to pay when the page is published.
I will create your page under Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, so it will stay.
Best regards,
Lewis Martin
Sometime you get also answers from "Taylor Grant" (another fictional name), Connor Martin, David Gamage, or Ethan Cole ("Executive Profile Strategist at Global Wiki Editors). The emails will be as above, but if you say "I'm skeptical", you will get a similar response as above:
Hi [NAME]
You're right to be skeptical, and the $980 ask you received is exactly the kind of thing that gives this space a bad reputation. That's not what I'm here to do.
Your notability is not in question. Your ranking, your publication record, your research impact, that's all there. The rejection is a writing problem, not a credentials problem. The draft triggered Wikipedia's neutrality flag because of how it's worded in places, not because of who you are.
Here's what I'd like to do, let me rewrite the draft properly, bring it into full compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines, and resubmit it through the AfC process. No $980. No upfront anything.
I'd also like to get on a quick Zoom call with you, not to pitch you, but to be fully transparent about the process, walk you through exactly what needs to change and why, and let you decide from there with the full picture in front of you.
Would that work for you?
Taylor Grant