glossaLAB - User contributions [en]

Draft:Being: From ancient times to contemporary times

2026-01-13T11:15:08Z

IkerF:

# ABSTRACT

This entry looks at the meaning of existence from ancient times to the present, focused on the change experienced in today’s model of “being” in comparison with ancient times. Examining how people understand themselves and how this understanding has changed throughout history. The question of what it means to "be" is not fixed, it has changed with philosophy, society, and technology. Current issues like loss of identity and critical thinking are not isolated problems. They are a result from a long development in philosophy that has evolved as the world has changed. The text starts with ancient views of being, where human life was seen as part of a larger order. In ancient thought, with Parmenides and Plato, we can say that being was linked to harmony, reason, and community. To know itself is to live by shared values and understand one's place in the world.

Next, the focus shifts to Kant, who transformed the understanding of being. He argued that we do not know reality directly but through the structures of the human mind. This idea centers the human subject in knowledge and marks the beginning of modern views on identity and experience. The discussion then turns to Hegel, who saw being as a historical process, claiming that identity develops through social relations, involving change and conflict between others. He defends that being is not static, it grows and transforms over time. After that, Heidegger, approached the question of being more directly. He introduced the concept of Dasein, being understood as closely tied to time, everyday life, and personal responsibility. For him, understanding oneself requires reflection and awareness of one's existence. With this philosophical background, the entry looks at new technologies and their impact on daily life. Digital tools alter how people experience time, attention, and presence, leading to faster and more fragmented ways of living.

After making a recap about ancient philosophers and their ideas about “being”, the text continues analysing nowadays situation, the way the “being” is seen and a comparison with these previous philosophers and their ideas on the different aspects we can observe in today’s model of “being”. As we will see, new technologies such as social networks have made a big change in the way we see ourselves.

2. ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT “BEING”

The concept of “being” is originated in the Ancient Greek philosophy, where thinkers first questioned what it means for something to exist and what reality truly is. Instead of relying only on any religious explanations or even myths, Greek philosophers tried to find answers by thinking in a more rational way. Among them, Parmenides, Plato, and other early thinkers played significant roles in the foundations of being. One of the earliest and most influential philosophers to explain the “being” was Parmenides. He argued that being is, and non-being is not. He believed that reality is one, unchanging, eternal, and indivisible. True knowledge can only be reached through reason, and not perception. This idea marked a radical change in philosophy by placing logical thinking above sensory experience and making being a central philosophical problem, it was the origin of something that would change the way we see ourselves. (Kirk, 1983)

In contrast, Heraclitus focused on constant change, with the famous state that says that one cannot step into the same river twice. Although his view seems opposite to Parmenides, it contributed to the debate about being by showing the tension between permanence and change. This conflict became a central issue for later philosophers, but as the dialectical method explains us, the conflict between thesis and antithesis is important in the search of truth. (Kirk, 1983)

Another philosopher, Plato, tried to address this problem by combining permanence and change in his philosophy. He introduced the theory of forms or ideas, saying that true being belongs to the eternal and unchanging forms. According to Plato, the physical world is just a copy or imitation of this higher reality. While the sensory world changes constantly, the world of forms represents true being and true knowledge. Humans can access this level of reality through reason and philosophical reflection, not just through their senses. (Kirk, 1983)

Aristotle is another significant figure who provided a more balanced and practical view of being. He rejected Plato’s separation of the world of forms from the physical world. For Aristotle, being exists in individual substances, which consist of matter and form. He introduced the idea that being can be understood in different ways, such as potentiality and actuality. Change, therefore, it is a natural process where potential being becomes actual being, he tries to explain the concept of being to everyday experience and scientific observation. (Shields, 2014)

3. MODERN PHILOSOPHERS

3.1 KANT

For Kant, human knowledge does not simply reflect reality as it is. Instead, the human mind works with experience. According to him, we never access things as they exist independently of us, but only as they appear to us. This means that being, as it is known by humans, is always mediated by the structures of the mind. (Allison, 2004)

Kant argues that space and time are not properties of the external world, but forms of human intuition. They are the basic ways in which we organize sensory information. In addition, the mind uses categories such as causality, unity, and substance to make sense of experience. Without these mental structures, experience would be chaotic and meaningless. As a result, being is no longer understood as an objective reality fully independent of the subject, but as something that appears within human cognition. (Allison, 2004)

"Being is obviously not a real predicate, it is a concept of something that could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the position of a thing or certain determinations in itself. In logical use it is merely the copula of a judgement. The sentence God is omnipotent contains two concepts that have their objects: God and omnipotence; the little word: is, is not a predicate, but only that which puts the predicate or the subject on it. If I now take the subject (God) with all its predicates (including omnipotence) and say: God is, or it is a God, then I do not add a new predicate to the concept of God, but only the subject in itself with all its predicates, namely the object in relation to its concept. Both must contain exactly the same thing, and therefore nothing further can be added to the concept, which merely expresses the possibility, because I think of its object as absolutely given (through the expression: it is). And so the real contains nothing more than the merely possible.” As explained in the article devoted to “Being” in GlossaLAB.

3.2 HEGEL

For Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, “being” is not something fixed or static. Instead, it is a process that develops with the time. Hegel criticizes earlier philosophies for treating being as something separate from change and history. According to him, being can only be understood if we understand becoming. (Taylor, 1975)

Hegel begins his philosophy with the idea that pure being is empty and undefined, because it has no specific content and it immediately turns into nothing. From this tension between being and nothing, becoming is created. This movement shows that reality is not stable, but dynamic. So, due to Hegel, being exists through change and development. (Taylor, 1975)

Being, therefore, is always historical and social as iIt unfolds through a dialectical process, where contradictions are not problems to eliminate, they are factors necessary for development.

3.3 HEIDEGGER

Heidegger radically rethinks the question of being. Instead of asking what beings are, he asks what it means to be. Heidegger introduces the idea of “Dasein”, a term used to describe human existence. Dasein is special because it is the being that can question its own being. He said that humans are not isolated subjects, but beings always involved in the world, in relationships, activities… This is what Heidegger calls “being in the world”. (Dreyfus, 1991)

For Heidegger, being is connected to time. Human existence is made by the past, the present, and the future. For Heidegger, people live in a systematic way, constantly following social rules and acting as if they have a role that someone designated them. That's why he says that authentic being becomes possible when individuals face their own finitude, especially the reality of death. So, being is not a concept to define, but an experience to uncover. Understanding being requires attention to everyday life and existence itself. (Dreyfus, 1991)

4. BEING IN TODAY’S SOCIETY

The question of existence in today's world takes place in a context that is very different from classical philosophy. Modern life is shaped by new technologies, social networks, and constant access to information. These tools bring us freedom, connection, self-expression.. But they also create new issues related to identity, for example, lack of identity or authenticity. People's understanding of who they are and how they exist is really influenced by digital environments and social pressure.

In today's society, existence is often tied to visibility. To exist means being seen, recognized, and validated by others, not only friends and family, also by people who we don’t know but they follow us on social networks. These platforms encourage individuals to present themselves as images or profiles, trying to get as many likes, followers, and comments as possible, something that has become measures of worth. As a result, identity is now formed not mainly through reflection or dialogue with itself, but also through comparison and external approval. People often modify their personalities depending on the dominant trends or stereotypes, and ideals that are promoted online, thinking that resembling others makes them better or more successful.

This situation reflects a loss of personal identity. Instead of forming a coherent sense of self, individuals take on multiple and changing roles depending on variable things like the platform, the context, the audience, situation... Nowadays solitude and self-examination is rare, it is replaced by constant stimulation of a life that is unreal.

4.1 COMPARISON WITH ANCIENT GREEK

When we compare this condition with ancient Greek philosophy, the contrast becomes clear. For Parmenides, as said before, true being was one, something stable and unchanging that could be accessed through reason. Today's existence, however, is unstable and constantly changing, depending on trends and digital rhythms. While Parmenides rejected appearances as illusions, modern life often values appearance over self real identity. Being is no longer about what is, but what appears to others.

On the other hand, in comparison with Plato's distinction between the world of forms and the world of appearances, in social networks, the digital image can be seen as a copy of a copy, an edited version of reality that is far away from the truth. The pursuit of beauty, success, and happiness online often overlooks deeper reflection, similar to Plato's criticism of a life focused solely on the sensible world rather than on true knowledge.

4.2 MODERN PHILOSOPHERS

With Kant, being becomes linked to the structures of human cognition. We do not know reality as it is, but as it appears to us, this process is intensified by technology, the most clear example of this can be seen on social networks, where we always see the best parts of people's life. For example, when someone goes on a trip, he will probably only upload the best parts of the trip. So, as Kant defends, in modernity “being” is also seen with a filter, we only see what they want us to see, not the complete reality.

Hegel's idea of being as a historical and social process also helps explain contemporary identity. For Hegel, the self develops through recognition by others, due to new technologies, we are constantly exposed to other people, they can deduce our economical or social situation only by uploading a photo, that's why many people try to manifest a life they don’t have. In modern digital life, recognition is constant but shallow. Instead of forming deep social bonds, individuals receive immediate but superficial validation. The dialectical process that should lead to self development has been reduced to repetition and imitation, limiting genuine growth.

Finally, Heidegger's concept of Dasein provides a strong critique of contemporary existence. Heidegger warned against living in a way where individuals conform to what "one does" instead of choosing authentically. Social networks strongly encourage this inauthentic way of living. People follow trends, opinions, and lifestyles without questioning them, losing touch with their own imagination, exploring their own possibilities. Some factors like the lack of silence or individual time makes authentic being increasingly difficult.

4.3 TODAY’S SOCIETY WITH SOCIAL NETWORKS: FACEBOOK

In today’s society, being is strongly connected to social recognition and online interaction. Social networks such as Facebook, play an important role in how people construct and experience their identity. The authors explain that many users turn to Facebook to satisfy basic identity needs, such as belonging, self esteem and feeling involved in society or a digital group. (Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2017)

In this context, being is no longer something internal or stable, but something that is shaped through interaction with others. On Facebook, individuals present a selected version of themselves by sharing photos, opinions, and personal moments. This online self is constantly evaluated with likes, comments, and reactions. As a result, existence becomes closely linked to visibility and feedback. When self-worth is based on online responses, personal identity becomes fragile and easily influenced by comparison with others. This reflects a broader condition of contemporary being, where individuals measure their value through social approval rather than inner reflection. Furthermore, the lack of digital interactions such as likes and comments, can lead to mental issues such as depression or feeling not recognised. (Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2017)

In this way, Facebook represents a clear example of the being of today, a form of existence that is dependent on digital environments. Being is experienced less as personal depth and more as social image, confirming that modern identity is increasingly constructed in the debate between the self and the network.

5. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, today's existence is highly influenced by new technologies such as social networks, leading to social comparison. People search for meaning and identity in visibility and imitation, often losing individual and critical thinking. When compared to the philosophical tradition, contemporary being is seen as a weakened form of existence, one that risks forgetting the essential question of what it truly means to be. Recovering this question may require slowing down and trying to spend more time with ourselves without technology around us, something that, as explained, is really low valorated in today’s society.

6. REFERENCES

Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., & Schofield, M. (1983). ''The presocratic philosophers'' (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Shields, C. (2014). ''Aristotle'' (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Allison, H. E. (2004). ''Kant’s transcendental idealism''. Yale University Press.

Taylor, C. (1975). ''Hegel''. Cambridge University Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). ''Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time''. MIT Press.

Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2017). ''Being in the Social: Identity processes related to Facebook use''. ''Computers in Human Behavior''

Draft:Being: From ancient times to contemporary times

2026-01-13T11:14:05Z

IkerF: Created page with "# ABSTRACT This entry looks at the meaning of existence from ancient times to the present, focused on the change experienced in today’s model of “being” in comparison with ancient times. Examining how people understand themselves and how this understanding has changed throughout history. The question of what it means to "be" is not fixed, it has changed with philosophy, society, and technology. Current issues like loss of identity and critical thinking are not iso..."

Draft:Arcadia

2026-01-13T10:52:13Z

IkerF:

# ABSTRACT

This paper examines Arcadia as an utopian model and explains its characteristics and relevance in the context of society. Arcadia was an idyllic place located in Greece, so it takes part of the classical Greek geography. Idealized through pastoral literature, Arcadia represents a timeless harmony in a society formed by humans, community, and nature. It is defined by simplicity and the rejection of technological and social progress. The first section analyzes the historical and cultural development of Arcadia as a literary and philosophical utopia.

The second section explains Arcadia in comparison with information society, as it will be explained later on the paper, the utopia of Arcadia is probably one of the clearest cases of opposition to the information society. In Arcadia the main characteristic was the peace and low development, so, this paper will focus on explaining the differences between Arcadia and the information society, and it will explore the advantages and disadvantages of these differences with the information society. Finally, the paper focuses on the dystopic aspects of Arcadia, talking about harmony, social exclusion, the erasure of conflict, and the ideological risks of nostalgic idealization.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 ARCADIA AS A SYMBOLIC PLACE

Arcadia was originally a real geographical region located in the central zone of the Peloponnese, in ancient Greece. It was an isolated territory with plenty of mountains, it was mostly known for its rural economy and pastoral way of life. Unlike other Greek regions, Arcadia was not famous for powerful cities or political influence. Over time, this physical isolation contributed to its transformation from a real place into a symbolic one. Arcadia step by step started becoming an imagined space with plenty of simplicity, harmony, and a life close to nature.

The idea of Arcadia as a utopian place developed mainly through literature. In classical antiquity, Greek poets started to represent Arcadia not as it truly was, but as an idealized rural place. One of the first authors that talked about Arcadia as an idyllic place was Theocritus, he wrote pastoral poems that described shepherds living peaceful lives in natural landscapes. These works established many of the themes that later became the main themes of the Arcadian myth: leisure, music, friendship, and a close relationship with the natural environment. In these texts, rural life appears calm and balanced, far removed from the conflicts and pressures of urban society. (Bann, 2003)

The Arcadian ideal was later reinforced and widely spread through Roman literature, especially in a work of Virgil called “Eclogues”. Virgil presented Arcadia as a poetic space where shepherds engage in song, reflection, and dialogue. He said that Arcadia was not affected by historical events like wars, or political struggles. Instead, it exists outside of time, offering an image of stability and continuity. For Roman readers, Arcadia represented an escape from the complexity and moral corruption of imperial life. It became a symbol of free time, opposed to busyness, for example, the stressful life of the city. (Greenberg, 2009)

During the Middle Ages, Arcadia lost prominence due to the dominance of religion, but it did not completely disappear. However, it re-emerged strongly during the Renaissance. Humanist thinkers and writers rediscovered classical texts and revived Arcadia as a powerful cultural symbol. In this period, Arcadia was often connected to the idea of a lost “Golden Age”, a time when humans lived in harmony with nature and with each other. Renaissance pastoral literature used Arcadia to criticize social inequality, political corruption, and the rapid changes brought by early modern society. As it will be explained, this was the main step to consider Arcadia as an utopia.

2.2 ARCADIA AS A UTOPIA

In the Renaissance context, Arcadia became more clearly an utopia. It was no longer just a poetic landscape, it started to be seen as a model of an ideal way of life. Writers described Arcadian communities as simple and peaceful, a place where people were able to live in peace with the resources they had. Technology, economic ambition, and development in general was absent or presented as negative aspects. Instead, this place valued more the respect of natural changes and rhythm as a model of lifestyle. (Bann, 2003)

As said before, one of the key characteristics of Arcadia as a utopia is its timeless nature. Unlike other utopian models that propose progress or future development, Arcadia is defined by permanence and the dependance on nature events. Life in Arcadia does not aim to improve or expand, it aims to remain stable. This stability and consistency is presented as a form of perfection, it was defended that happiness comes from knowing one’s place in the world and accepting natural limits. (Blanco, 2014)

Another important aspect of the Arcadian ideal is its focus on community rather than individuality. People were defined by their relationships with others and with the land. There is little emphasis on personal ambition or competition (as explained before, this also comes alongside with the lack of economic ambition). Social roles appear fixed, and this contributes to the image of harmony and order, the main characteristics of this place. At the same time, this lack of change and development raises questions about the utopical aspect of this place, it was debated themes like freedom and diversity, these later critics could be considered as potential problems.

3. THE UTOPIA REGARDING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

The concept of the information society is usually associated with digital technologies and fast communication, as the central role of data and information in social organization. As seen before, Arcadia is completely the opposite of this concept of information society, the utopia was based on nature, low development, life seen as freedom and peace, and other characteristics already mentioned that are clearly the opposite of the concept of information society.

In contemporary societies, information flows continuously through digital networks, shaping how people work, communicate, and understand the world. In contrast, Arcadia represents a radically different model of social life. Rather than relying on information technologies, Arcadia is defined by simplicity, slow life, and direct human interaction.

Arcadia can therefore be understood as an “anti-model” of the information society. It does not aim to improve communication or any other aspects through technology, instead, it values stability and continuity. Time in Arcadia moves slowly, following natural rhythms rather than digital schedules. This opposition is why Arcadia can be especially compared to nowadays, as it allows a critical comparison between modern societies based on technology and rapid growth and an imagined world free from informational and development pressure.

3.1 KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNICATION

One of the main aspects of the information is the facilities to acquire knowledge, this can lead into a critique of the Arcadian utopia. In Arcadia, knowledge is not based technical, or data-based, It is practical, local, and closely connected to lived experience. People learn through observation, tradition, and shared practices rather than through formal education systems as we can see in contemporary societies. Communication takes place face to face, often in communal settings, such as conversations among shepherds or shared activities in nature. So, it’s true that due to lack of technology, the amount of knowledge is much less than contemporary or modern models involved in information society. But, if we analyse the life model of Arcadia, we have to remember that they live in a very simple way, where they work in community and only do what they need for living. That’s why, despite the lack of information they have, this is not really a problem for them. In fact, that makes the utopia to still be an utopia and maintain the essence of the place. They only acquire the knowledge they need from their surrounding people, and they are able to live with that.

In terms of communication, there is no bureaucracy or other systems for controlling information. Memory and oral tradition play a key role, which creates a strong sense of community, but also limits the circulation of new ideas. Knowledge in Arcadia is stable and repetitive, reflecting the general resistance to change that characterizes this utopia. So, this can be seen as good for an utopia, but in reality and in comparison with modern societies, it limits the innovation and the exploration of new ideas.

Following with the differences in communication, one of the main problems of the contemporary information society is information overload. Individuals are constantly exposed to new information, such as news, messages, and digital content in general, which can lead to suffering from anxiety, distraction, and not paying enough attention to what they are being told. From this perspective, Arcadia’s model doesn't have to deal with these situations, so it can be valorated in a good way in modern societies. The silence, limited communication, and absence of digital media can represent an ideal of mental calm.

3.2 HEALTHCARE

So, we can say that Arcadia can also be seen as idyllic in terms of mental healthcare. Following this statement, nowadays, many cases of mental health issues have been attributed to exclusion. In this aspect, as Arcadia's model is focused on community and personal relations, it mostly avoids many types of exclusion. For example, every exclusion that involves economy, such as classism, including access to technologies.

In terms of physical healthcare, the situation changes radically. Arcadia has serious limitations, the lack of technology and slow development of the infrastructure or medicine makes Arcadia a society with low life expectancy. This aspect can be seen as one of the worst cases when we compare Arcadia with modern models that include information society. It’s true that in ancient times, life expectancy was really low, so this was not seen as a negative aspect, but in comparison with modern societies, there is no debate on which model benefits this aspect.

For these reasons, Arcadia should not be understood as a realistic alternative to the information society. Arcadia acts as a critical mirror that reflects the negative effects of digital acceleration, constant connectivity, and information overload. But, when we imagine a world without these pressures, we have to be conscious also of the positive aspect of this rapid growth.

In conclusion, Arcadia can be understood as a utopian “anti-model” of the information society. While contemporary societies are based on digital technologies, fast communication, and constant access to information, Arcadia represents simplicity, slow life, and direct human relationships. Its rejection of technological development allows a form of life that values stability, community, and peace over growth and efficiency, but when it comes to healthcare, the truth is that Arcadia is far away from being as good as modern societies.

4. DYSTOPICAL ASPECTS

Although Arcadia is mainly presented as a harmonious and peaceful utopia, some characteristics reveal some dystopical aspects of this place. These problems appear especially when, as already explained before, we compare Arcadia with modern societies and their model and need of diversity and technological development. What seems ideal at first, can become problematic when applied to real social conditions.

One of the main dystopical elements of Arcadia is the strong idealization of rural life. As already seen, pastoral literature often presents nature as pure and peaceful, but it ignores the difficulties and inequalities attributed to agricultural labor. Pastoral ideals tend to hide the tension between nature and social reality, creating an unrealistic image of harmony that excludes difficulties of rural life (Marx, 1964).

When we analyse the characteristics of the utopia, we can see that any difficulty of rural work is mentioned. Rural work seems perfect and in harmony between workers, conflicts between workers or natural difficulties are not taken into account when rural work is mentioned.

Another dystopical aspect is social stagnation, Arcadia is defined by stability and resistance to change or evolve, which appears positive. However, this absence of progress also means the lack of innovation, this lack of innovation not only includes the already mentioned the technologic aspect, but it also includes social innovation like social mobility, and personal development. Roles are fixed, and individuals are expected to follow the existing order rather than transform it or find their own way to live or act. In this sense, harmony becomes a form of social control, where difference and ambition are discouraged in order to preserve balance.

This social immobility also affects knowledge and communication. As discussed earlier, Arcadia relies on oral tradition and shared experience rather than on structured information exchange systems. While this strengthens community bonds, it limits access to new ideas and critical thinking. Pastoral utopias often simplify human experience by reducing complexity and excluding intellectual conflict, which can result in an unrealistic and restrictive vision of society (Frye, 1966).

Healthcare represents one of the clearest dystopical limitations of Arcadia. This aspect has already been explained as a contradiction of information society, but it is important to recall that this is a big dystopic aspect. The lack of technological and informational development leads to poor medical knowledge and low life expectancy. While this was normal in ancient contexts, from a contemporary perspective it represents a serious disadvantage. The rejection of technology may protect mental calm, but it also prevents improvements that directly affect quality of life and life expectancy.

In conclusion, Arcadia contains several dystopical aspects that unmasks its ideal surface. Its rejection of technology, change, and evolution in general, including avoiding any complexity, may offer a critique of modern society, but it also produces stagnation and vulnerability. The main dystopic aspects, healthcare and social evolution and innovation are good reasons to think that Arcadia can’t be seen as a model to follow in contemporary times.

But despite all the dystopic aspects, as already explained in comparison with information society, Arcadia has some characteristics that could be really interesting in terms of peace and harmony, something that in contemporary times is really well valorated. We live in constant stress with an overload of information and work, and this seems to worsen with time. It’s really important to take care of mental health, so sometimes we should take into consideration the model of Arcadia in this aspect.

For all these reasons, Arcadia should be understood not as a perfect model, but as a utopia only seen as perfect in the ancient times, where technology was not as useful and necessary as contemporary times.

5. REFERENCES

Greenberg, J. (2009). ''Paradox, place, and pastoralism in the works of Theocritus, Virgil, and Thoreau''. ''Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture''

Bann, S. (2003). ''Arcadia as utopia in contemporary landscape design: The work of Bernard Lassus''. ''History of the Human Sciences''

Blanco, M. (2014). ''Entre Arcadia y Utopía: el país imaginado de las «Soledades» de Góngora''. ''Studia Aurea''

Frye, N. (1966). ''The pastoral ideal''. En ''The educated imagination''. Indiana University Press.

Marx, L. (1964). ''The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America''. Oxford University Press.

Draft:Arcadia

2026-01-13T10:49:05Z

IkerF:

Draft:Arcadia

2026-01-13T10:46:06Z

IkerF: Arcadia as a Utopia

User:IkerF

2025-11-06T18:17:23Z

IkerF:

{{Person
|Given name=Iker
|Family name=Faido
|Sex=Male
|Country=Spain
|Institution=Hochschule München (HM) – University of Applied Sciences
|Professional category=Elementary occupations / Unskilled workers
|Academic degree=Vocational Diploma
|KD of expertise=Social Work
|Current academic institution=Hochschule München (HM) – University of Applied Sciences
|Current academic level=Bachelor’s Degree
|Current academic degree=Social Work
|input language=ES (Spanish)
}}
[[Category:Person]]

User:IkerF

2025-10-20T15:13:59Z

IkerF: create user page

{{Person}}[[Category:Person]]