Hi, Not sure if Asaf is replying in his volunteer mode or WMF staff mode. He should clearly state that in his every communication.
Also, he should give citations for whatever rules/guidelines he has mentioned. Or else, it could be part of just his own thinking. I have been in the grants allocation process from old times.... I dont remember having any such guidelines/rules for the grants. Possibly those are introduced later on. Asaf and/or grants committee members or associates please clarify. Regards Sudhanwa On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4:25 PM Belinda Mbambo via WikimediaIndia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Loz, > > To build on what Asaf shared: the idea of “starting small” is meant as a > pathway to help newer or less experienced groups build experience over time > –with planning activities, managing budgets, and reporting– before moving > on to larger and more complex events like conferences. > > Alongside this, there are a few ways we support organizers in building > that experience. Many groups start with smaller grants (like Rapid Grants > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Grants:Project/Rapid>), > which gives them a chance to run activities and build a track record. You > can find more detail on this in the eligibility guidance > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference#Eligibility_requirements> > on Meta. Additionally, applicants can also reach out to grant staff at > different stages to talk through ideas, get feedback, and better understand > what a good next step might be, and this is something we encourage > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference#Get_in_touch>. > > We also share materials and examples from past events (including budget > templates > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13W4ynIn3cT9ebbfjieS4cxQYn5R0xSc7krBeddN9WZo/copy>, > reports > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Grants:Conference_Grants/Edit_%26_review_reports>, > and other resources) so new organizers can see more concretely what is > involved in running a conference. For groups interested in conferences, we > would often encourage them to start with smaller or more local events (e.g. > meetups, workshops, or thematic gatherings) before moving to larger > regional conferences. Additionally, we also support new organizers or first > time organizers to engage/speak with past conference organizers about their > learnings, and connect the dots. > > You can find more details on how the Conference Fund works, including > guidance and resources here on Meta > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference>. > > Thank you for taking the time to reach out and enquire about this. > > Best, > > Belinda > > > >> >> From: Asaf Bartov via WikimediaIndia-l < >> [email protected]> >> Date: Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:37 PM >> Subject: [WikimediaIndia-l] Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Why Was Nepal Denied >> While Overlapping Grants Were Approved in India? >> To: Wikimedia India Community list <[email protected]> >> Cc: Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> >> >> >> Thank you for the question, Loz: >> >> As a grantmaker, the Foundation must exercise [[due diligence]] in >> allocating funds to grantees. Newer and less experienced grantees are more >> of a risk of low or no impact (due to a variety of potential reasons, not >> all the fault of the grantees), and so standard practice is to *start >> small*: less-experienced grant-seekers should first apply for *Rapid >> Grants*, to do some smaller-scale programmatic activities, and to >> demonstrate impact, as well as proper governance around grant funds and >> reporting. >> >> That's how groups can build a track record over time, and eventually >> become eligible for bigger grants. And grant officers, starting from the >> Rapid Grants program, are your allies in this journey, and can provide >> advice and mentorship, if desired, to help groups identify appropriate >> projects for subsequent grants. >> >> Cheers, >> >> A. >> >> Asaf Bartov (he/him/his) >> >> Lead Program Officer, Emerging Communities >> >> Community Development >> >> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >> >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! >> https://donate.wikimedia.org >> >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 10:30 AM Loz Jones via WikimediaIndia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> just from reading this it's difficult to understand how efforts to "ensure >>> funds are disbursed to those who have past experience with managing a large >>> fund and/or conference" [sic] (B.Mbambo) co-exist with empowering new >>> participants and prioritising under-represented communities per the >>> Eligibility >>> requirements >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requirements>. >>> I would ask what training is available for such potential organisers to >>> gain the necessary experience for consideration in regards to conference >>> grants? >>> >>> Your faithfully, >>> >>> LJ, a retired Wikipedian >>> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 8:33 AM Chinmayee Mishra via WikimediaIndia-l < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Pankaj Sharma Ji, >>>> >>>> I’m writing in response to your recent posts across multiple mailing >>>> lists, including WikimediaIndia-l. >>>> >>>> First, I want to acknowledge a lapse on my part: I should have >>>> communicated the reason for moderating (not approving) your message. As a >>>> moderator, it is my standard practice to provide such context, and I regret >>>> not doing so in this instance. >>>> >>>> With that, I would like to clarify the decision itself. The message was >>>> not approved because it had already been sent to multiple mailing lists >>>> with largely the same content, and it did not add new or list-specific >>>> information for WikimediaIndia-l. In moderation, we try to ensure that >>>> discussions remain relevant, constructive, and non-duplicative for the >>>> specific audience of each list. >>>> >>>> This decision was not a judgment on the importance of the broader >>>> concerns you are raising, but rather on the suitability of that particular >>>> message for this specific mailing list, given its repetition and lack of >>>> additional context tailored to the audience. >>>> >>>> Going forward, I encourage you to: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Share list-specific context when cross-posting >>>> - >>>> >>>> Consolidate follow-ups where possible instead of repeating similar >>>> messages >>>> - >>>> >>>> Clearly distinguish new information or developments in subsequent >>>> posts >>>> >>>> >>>> I appreciate your understanding, and I remain open to constructive, >>>> focused discussions on the list. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Chinmayee >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 10:25 AM Pankaj Sharma via Wikimedia-l < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I appreciate your kind words Rocky, and I understand the spirit behind >>>>> your encouragement. However we as a community feel compelled to express >>>>> some concerns that continue to weigh heavily on us. >>>>> >>>>> While your message acknowledges the effort we’ve put into the >>>>> proposal, I want to be clear that the discouragement comes not just from >>>>> the rejection, but from the lack of transparency and fairness in the >>>>> decision-making process. As you rightly mentioned, many regions >>>>> already have established conferences, but South Asia is still in the early >>>>> stages. That's exactly why our proposed SAARC Conference was so important. >>>>> >>>>> The last SAARC conference was held in 2019 organized by CIS, but since >>>>> then no initiatives have been taken to host another one. When our >>>>> community finally took the step to revive this effort, the proposal was >>>>> rejected. The main reason cited by the committee was: >>>>> >>>>> * "One of the main factors in the committee’s decision is the close >>>>> connection between WikiConference India and a potential SAARC Conference. >>>>> Given the current uncertainties surrounding WikiConference India (due to >>>>> the recently rejected FCRA license for CIS), the committee believes it >>>>> would be best to focus on resolving that situation before considering >>>>> funding for an additional large conference in the region."* >>>>> >>>>> This reasoning raises several important questions, which I’ve also >>>>> raised in my previous email. Why were we asked to solve the internal >>>>> issues >>>>> of an organization in India? We are just a volunteer-led community, not >>>>> paid employees. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, our emails to the India mailing list have been rejected >>>>> by some of the same people involved in the decision-making process. This >>>>> gives the impression that discussion is being suppressed, and that the >>>>> voices of the volunteer community are being ignored. It feels like the >>>>> foundation is preventing these critical issues from being discussed with >>>>> the broader community. >>>>> >>>>> Belinda, as I mentioned before, I shared a set of questions regarding >>>>> transparency and clarifications in an email on 18th April. >>>>> Unfortunately I have not yet received any responses. Below is the content >>>>> from that email, which I believe highlights critical gaps in >>>>> communication: >>>>> >>>>> *Content of Previous Email (18th April)* >>>>> >>>>> *Dear Belinda,* >>>>> >>>>> *Thank you for your Email response* >>>>> >>>>> *I would like to clarify that while the rejection itself is >>>>> disappointing, the primary concern for us lies in the responses our >>>>> community received from the Committee on our proposal talk page. In >>>>> February, we received a set of questions, to which we promptly responded >>>>> with detailed answers within the following week. However, when the >>>>> decision >>>>> was communicated to us in March, it seemed to focus primarily on the close >>>>> connection between WikiConference India and the potential SAARC >>>>> Conference, >>>>> citing uncertainties surrounding WikiConference India as a key factor.* >>>>> >>>>> *We are still struggling to understand why this issue led to the >>>>> rejection of our proposal, especially considering the context surrounding >>>>> India. You mentioned that multiple factors are considered when evaluating >>>>> proposals. However, based on the feedback we received, the main concern >>>>> raised by the Committee was the connection between WikiConference India >>>>> and >>>>> the SAARC Conference, tied to the uncertain situations in India. After >>>>> discussing this with some community members, this leads us to ask: Why was >>>>> this issue only highlighted when it came from a volunteer community like >>>>> ours and not when it involved an institutional body in India? Why do we >>>>> feel that the Committee treated us differently?* >>>>> >>>>> *Further Concerns and Questions:* >>>>> >>>>> 1. *How can we resolve issues that are specific to India (such as >>>>> the FCRA license) from Nepal? This seems outside of our control. Why >>>>> should >>>>> our proposal be impacted by challenges in another country?* >>>>> 2. *The Open Knowledge Conference proposal on the talk page has >>>>> unanswered questions, despite being months since they were posted. Did >>>>> the >>>>> Committee have time to review and respond to these before approval? Or >>>>> was >>>>> this simply overlooked?* >>>>> 3. *We feel that the lack of transparency in the process, >>>>> especially for smaller volunteer communities like ours, is a >>>>> significant >>>>> concern. You mentioned that we might not be aware of behind-the-scenes >>>>> discussions. But isn’t it important to ensure that all >>>>> voices—especially >>>>> those of volunteers—are heard clearly and fairly?* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We hope Belinda, you will respond to these questions on this email. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, we have come to know that CIS is now the International >>>>> Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad. What surprised us even more >>>>> is that the director board members for both organizations are the same. Is >>>>> there a potential conflict of interest or undue influence in how proposals >>>>> from these institutions are being evaluated? >>>>> >>>>> We have also observed that proposals with institutional backing seem >>>>> to receive faster approval and less scrutiny than others, despite having >>>>> similar goals and target audiences. A recent example is the renamed Open >>>>> Knowledge Conference, which was approved with minimal questioning and >>>>> without addressing the concerns raised by the community. >>>>> >>>>> This is particularly striking considering that the grantees of this >>>>> event have close ties to the Wikimedia Foundation, with some having >>>>> previously served as grant officers at Wikimedia Foundation. It >>>>> raises important questions about the evaluation process and whether such >>>>> prior relationships might be influencing the way proposals are reviewed. >>>>> If >>>>> these relationships are playing a role, it could result in a situation >>>>> where proposals from institutional bodies are approved quickly and with >>>>> less scrutiny, while volunteer-led proposals like ours face more stringent >>>>> questioning. >>>>> >>>>> We believe that these issues need to be addressed in order to ensure a >>>>> fair future for all proposals, regardless of whether they are led by >>>>> volunteers or institutions. >>>>> >>>>> We look forward to hearing your responses to these concerns and to >>>>> understanding the rationale behind these decisions. >>>>> >>>>> Pankaj >>>>> On Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026 at 12:30 AM, Belinda Mbambo via >>>>> Wikimedia-l <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Pankaj, >>>>> >>>>> Replying here in addition to the conversation you started directly >>>>> with us. >>>>> >>>>> We understand a rejection of any proposal is a disappointing outcome >>>>> and we work with a certain set of criterias, processes and resources. As >>>>> was shared on wiki, >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026#c-CKibelka_(WMF)-20250319155900-Decision_on_the_Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026_proposal> >>>>> the conference committee - made up of Wikimedians - did not approve the >>>>> conference for a range of reasons. >>>>> >>>>> We work closely with the Conference Committee >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference_Grants/Committee> >>>>> who, together with inputs gathered from multiple discussions with the >>>>> grantee, arrive at the funding conclusions. On the same pages you will >>>>> find >>>>> the timelines, stages, process and be able to review past proposals and >>>>> reports. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested to build capacity and expertise of the team before >>>>> scaling up to large regional events. This approach would better align with >>>>> the Maithili Wikimedians’ track record in event organization and grant >>>>> management. >>>>> >>>>> I know others have also enquired about this process - more information >>>>> can be found here on meta-wiki >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requirements> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> There are some basic eligibility criteria >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/en#Eligibility_requirements> >>>>> to apply for a Conference Fund, we use these parameters to ensure funds >>>>> are >>>>> disbursed to those who have past experience with managing a large fund >>>>> and/or conference, the past record, no pending reports and/or work with a >>>>> Fiscal Sponsor who fulfills some of these requirements. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, there are multiple factors that are considered (along >>>>> with the above) which differ in each round (external situation, available >>>>> resources, assessment of all submissions) and emerging community needs and >>>>> strategy. >>>>> >>>>> A rejection is always supported by suggestions on steps which could be >>>>> taken to address any identified improvements, if applicable. You can find >>>>> the responses to all recent proposals >>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/Browse_applications#> >>>>> on their talk page. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Belinda >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Belinda Mbambo* >>>>> Senior Manager: Global Movement Communications >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 7:31 AM Masum al Hasan via Wikimedia-l < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Pankaj, >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that the outcome must be disappointing, especially after >>>>>> the effort invested in preparing the proposal. Please do not feel >>>>>> discouraged. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many regions already have established regional conferences, and South >>>>>> Asia is still working toward that milestone. In that context, the >>>>>> initiative taken by the Maithili Wikimedia community is both significant >>>>>> and commendable. Even though the proposal was not funded this time, the >>>>>> effort itself carries substantial value. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to sincerely appreciate the Maithili Wikimedians for >>>>>> taking this important first step. This should not be viewed as a failure, >>>>>> but rather as the beginning of a larger and more ambitious journey. Such >>>>>> initiatives often lay the groundwork for future success, and this effort >>>>>> will certainly be remembered as a pioneering one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Rocky >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 4:46 PM Pankaj Sharma via Wikimedia-l < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Butch, Arvind, Николай, DR and Lane for the thoughtful >>>>>>> responses and for sharing additional perspectives related to this >>>>>>> matter. I >>>>>>> would like to follow up to clarify a few points and to raise some >>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>> that remain unresolved from the earlier discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our community proposal to organize the SAARC Conference in Nepal >>>>>>> for 2026 >>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026> >>>>>>> was declined, with one of the key reasons stated at talk page as: *"One >>>>>>> of the main factors in the committee’s decision is the close connection >>>>>>> between WikiConference India and a potential SAARC Conference."* >>>>>>> Additionally, we were advised that *"Given the current >>>>>>> uncertainties surrounding WikiConference India (due to the recently >>>>>>> rejected FCRA license for CIS), the committee believes it would be best >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> focus on resolving that situation before considering funding for an >>>>>>> additional large conference in the region."* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our SAARC proposal was rejected due to uncertainties in India and >>>>>>> concerns about overlap, it is surprising to observe that another >>>>>>> proposal, >>>>>>> Open Knowledge Conference was approved today without proper scrutiny, >>>>>>> despite being closely related in scope, audience, and regional context. >>>>>>> Our >>>>>>> proposal had lot of questions asked for and the recent approved grant >>>>>>> got >>>>>>> approved surprisingly without any questions asked by the committee. >>>>>>> Why for we volunteers there was lots of questioning but when the >>>>>>> proposal >>>>>>> is from a institutions under a staff role there is no question asked? >>>>>>> This >>>>>>> raises an important question about consistency in decision-making. We >>>>>>> noticed in the committee's feedback that the Open Knowledge Conference >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> described as "*an iteration of a recurring event."* But we have >>>>>>> been unable to identify previous editions of this event under the same >>>>>>> name. At the same time there has been discussion on the talk page >>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Open_Knowledge_Conference> >>>>>>> about the proposal previously being framed as a "*Wikimedia >>>>>>> Technical Summit" *before being renamed. This raises an important >>>>>>> question: if this is indeed a recurring event could the committee >>>>>>> clarify >>>>>>> under what name and format previous iterations were held? Additionally >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> was the rationale for the change in naming and how does this relate to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> continuity being referenced in the evaluation ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the uncertainty around WikiConference in India and regulatory >>>>>>> challenges were significant enough to halt our proposal entirely why >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> similar concerns not applied when evaluating proposals emerging from the >>>>>>> same team at International Institute of Information Technology >>>>>>> Hyderabad? Is this difference in treatment influenced by the fact >>>>>>> that our proposal led by the community volunteers, while proposals from >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> International Institute of Information Technology are being submitted >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> staff or institutional capacity ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The argument of *close connection* between events also appears to >>>>>>> have been applied selectively. In our case it was a decisive reason for >>>>>>> rejection. However in other instances where thematic and organizational >>>>>>> overlap is evident, this concern does not seem to have been given the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> weight. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This raises a fundamental question pointing: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Why should our proposal be affected by regulatory or organizational >>>>>>> problems in another country? **What about the close connection for >>>>>>> proposal for WikiConference India 2026and Open Knowledge Conference?* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We want to share that the WikiConference India 2026 and the Open >>>>>>> Knowledge Conference are scheduled within a span of approximately >>>>>>> two months, while our rejected proposal of Wikimedia SAARC >>>>>>> Conference 2026 >>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026> >>>>>>> and WikiConference India 2025 >>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/WikiConference_India_2025> >>>>>>> had a gap of 10 months. Which one is here overlapping, SAARC or Open >>>>>>> Knowledge Conference ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We note that Nepal was encouraged to scale down and build experience >>>>>>> through smaller events. It is very much discouraging to see differing >>>>>>> standards applied when other entities are getting multiple large-scale >>>>>>> grants with overlapping goals and participants without any discussions >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We respectfully ask to WMF and the community: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. How are overlap and regional connection being defined and >>>>>>> applied across different proposals ? >>>>>>> 2. Why were external factors in one country used to delay or >>>>>>> reject a proposal from another.? >>>>>>> 3. What measures are in place to ensure equitable and consistent >>>>>>> evaluation for both volunteer-led and staff-led proposals ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our community strongly believe that all communities regardless of >>>>>>> size or geography should be given a fair opportunity to grow and >>>>>>> contribute. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We request to have an committee to investigate all the previous and >>>>>>> on-going grant proposals from this institution and make the process >>>>>>> more transparent. We hope this can open a constructive and >>>>>>> transparent dialogue toward greater accountability and consistency in >>>>>>> decision-making process and allocation of funds to the communities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Pankaj >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 at 3:18 AM, Pankaj Sharma < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The community proposal to host the regional SAARC Conference in >>>>>>> 2026 in Nepal >>>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Conference_Fund/Wikimedia_SAARC_Conference_2026> >>>>>>> was declined. The reasons provided was the event would be redundant and >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> unnecessary expense because a similar conference is planned in India in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> year of 2025. However in 2025 conference in India didn't happened and >>>>>>> surprisingly our proposal was declined beacuse of that. But why.!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While Nepal’s proposal was viewed with skepticism regarding our >>>>>>> capacity, the 2025 conference in India failed to materialize due to a >>>>>>> failure in financial management and a lack of understanding regarding >>>>>>> local >>>>>>> FCRA regulations in India. This resulted in a substantial huge waste of >>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation resources. It is disheartening that the Conference >>>>>>> Grant Program Officer applied Indian legal constraints as a blanket >>>>>>> assumption for Nepal, hindering our community's growth based on a >>>>>>> misunderstanding of our local context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a question: How did the legal situation in India affect the >>>>>>> decision on a proposal of Nepal? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking ahead to 2026 I was doubtful by the current grant >>>>>>> applications from the International Institute of Information Technology >>>>>>> Hyderabad. I see that a request for 207,000 USD has been submitted for >>>>>>> WikiConference India 2026. Simultaneously, the same individual >>>>>>> representing >>>>>>> the same institution, has applied for an separate 87,554.81 USD for an >>>>>>> Open >>>>>>> Knowledge Conference within a gap of few months of the first event with >>>>>>> same purpose and target participants. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a Wikimedian this raises serious questions about the equitable >>>>>>> distribution and potential misuse of community resources. While Nepal is >>>>>>> told to scale down and gain experience with smaller events, a single >>>>>>> institution is requesting nearly 300,000 USD for overlapping projects >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> same people in the organization role and same theme. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about redundancy and extra >>>>>>> costs when it comes to Nepal, why is it being overlooked when a single >>>>>>> institution in India applies for two major grants for nearly identical >>>>>>> purposes? We need more accountability and a fairer distribution of >>>>>>> resources to ensure that all communities not just one can grow. We urge >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> foundation and the community to investigate these for the benefit of the >>>>>>> entire regional community and stop wasting the resources make the >>>>>>> process >>>>>>> more transparent and accountable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Pankaj >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], >>>>>>> guidelines at: >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>>> Public archives at >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/UAEK3OOQKW2WLWBUVYPE76L33N3VM4KQ/ >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], >>>>>> guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> Public archives at >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/WUHAXAPGFQMGB4MREXJLKBE4GZWOOBKB/ >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], >>>>> guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> Public archives at >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/DPLUPMOVVINQZTYRZUD7OKOSRH4OKRBE/ >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> WikimediaIndia-l mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>> [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikimediaIndia-l mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikimediaIndia-l mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ >> >> >> -- >> >> Rachit Sharma (he/him) >> >> Manager (Global Events & South Asia), >> >> Movement Communications, Wikimedia Foundation >> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >> >> *We help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge. * >> >> *We are the people who keep knowledge free.* >> >> _______________________________________________ > WikimediaIndia-l mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ -- !~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~! Have you tried IDN/EAI mailing? Check out idnmail.net web: www.sudhanwa.com blog: www.sudhanwa.in Twitter: sudhanwa Check on FB, Linkedin for more.
_______________________________________________ WikimediaIndia-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
