Talk:Ronnie Mitchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parents[edit]

The Radio Times says that their parents are Archie and Glenda Mitchell, Archie being Eric's brother. So it seems we were wrong to assume their father was Clive, previously mentioned as Eric's other brother. However, (the esteemed publication) Soaplife stated that Clive was their father - but I swear they get most of their information from here and the Digital Spy forums anyway, so Radio Times are probably right! Any comments? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 09:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing it then although no mention of this Archie has ever been made and he's not on Ben's wall, but then again is Clive? We just assumed it was Clive, so if there's now a source, change it. This means though that Archie needs to be added to all appropriate family sections as well. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you changed it right after asking anyway, so no problems :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

Wassat? Actually there loads of OOU stuff that can be added. I'm sure we could get these up to GA standard. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for OOU perspective??????[edit]

Here are some news articles that may be of interest:

  • "Sam's 'Enders Goss". Sky Showbiz. 2007-11-28. Retrieved 2007-11-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "EastEnders' wife-swap?". Metro. 2007-11-27. Retrieved 2007-11-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I've even done the citation templates if anyone decides to use them ;) anemoneIprojectors 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find all those? I looked last night and didn't find half of those! Good stuff. Works for Roxy too. anemone│projectors 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have become an expert source finder since editing on wiki :) Gungadin♦ 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google News wouldn't let me search between 2006 and 1 month ago! Also when trying to find something old I can only ever find pages that require subscription or some kind of payment :( You obviously have other ways and means... (in future let's put sources on talk pages for every article as we find them). anemone│projectors 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Have you ever heard of furl? [1] you add it to your browser, and when you go to a page you want to find again, you can furl it by pressing a button. It saves it in your own personal database. It's much better than saving into favourites because it's easier to organise and it archives the page, so you can read it even after it's been deleted by the original provider. Just thought you might find it handy :) Gungadin♦ 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good but I think I'll pass on that for now... thanks though ;) anemone│projectors 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make a sandbox subpage connected to here? I dont wanna start a major edit in mainspace if I cant finish, but in a sandbox we can both edit when we can and it wont bodge up the content on the main page.Gungadin♦ 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just create talk:Ronnie Mitchell/Sandbox, I guess. anemone│projectors 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should do something with these... anemone│projectors 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, yeh we'll get it started in the new year shall we?Gungadin♦ 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can make it our collaberation of the... season :) anemone│projectors 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She [Ronnie] has a problem with physical violence. Any time she's up against it or feels she's been lied to, she lashes out" - interview with Samantha Janus by Sally Brockway, 26 January 2008 issue of TV Times, entitled "Kiss - and HELL!" -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is from page 24 (essential for the {{cite journal}} template). anemone│projectors 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Room for one more? Sam Janus exclusive anemone│projectors 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders' Sam Janus hit in the head, Sam hit during EastEnders filming? anemone│projectors 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a video of ref number 14 (Jonathan Ross interview) - there's some stuff that can be harvested... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

(moved from Talk:Ronnie Mitchell/Sandbox) I'm not sure but I though a sandbox was supposed to be a part of user space? I'm not sure if this is allowable on article main space like this? If it is an article being worked out in a sandbox shouldn't it be at User :Gungadin/Sandbox. I will go and see what info I can find on this. I have marked the article as patrolled for now. Sting_au Talk 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also just discovered that Ronnie Mitchell already exists. Shouldn't this page be deleted? Sting_au Talk 23:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SP says the test page should be on the talk page, here, not the mainspace. But it's allowed. anemone│projectors 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment for the sandbox: when quotes are spliced, the ellipsis should have square brackets around it to show removal of text ([...]). anemone│projectors 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ... did show removal of text. Do you mean if comments have been merged from two separate sources, for example one comment from the sun and one from the mirror? Gungadin♦ 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, like if I was quoting what you said but didn't want to include a bit in the middle, I'd put "Do you mean if comments have been merged [...] from the sun and one from the mirror?" You just have to use [] to show removal of text, otherwise it looks like the ... is part of the original quote. anemone│projectors 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else you can think to add to the rewrite? or shall we merge it in. There might be more to add to reception, but we can add that at any time in mainspace.Gungadin 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I say do it! Oh but when you merge it, please link to the sandbox page in your edit summary (pretty essential for GFDL reasons). anemone│projectors 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is it's so good, there's no need for an actual storylines section. What'll we do for future storylines?!! anemone│projectors 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it will just be repetition to include both, but I tried not to make the character development sections as detailed as I could have, so that it could be more detailed in the storylines bit. But if you want to cut out storylines completely, like we did to Pauline, then we can work on including anything that might be relevant from the storylines section. Then, in future, we can include only notable plot elements in an OOU fashion.Gungadin 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as it is for now with both OOU info and plot. Wait for someone to complain ;) anemone│projectors 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we source the plot summary, and extend the reception, we might be able to get GA on this. Should we try? Gungadin 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love it if we did... anemone│projectors 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the plot[edit]

If we source the plot, would it matter if all the sources are from the same place? Or should we go for variety? What's On TV has an archive, and obviously the BBC. Any others? anemone│projectors 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it matters. We can always use cite episode too. Also, do you know how we can source the promotional adverts, the individual ones. I cant see a cite advert anywhere. I watched them on youtube to get the quotes, but we cant use that as a source, or can we? Gungadin 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm I don't think we can. Unless the BBC uploaded them, I guess. Not sure how you'd source an advert otherwise. anemone│projectors 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle[edit]

Why did Ronnie carry on calling Danielle by that name until her death when one would have expected her to have called her Amy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important, so stop writing about it. anemone│projectors 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Eastenders scriptwriter? How do you know what is important and not important? If you are writing the future scripts about Ronnie in Eastenders then I will accept your decision otherwise I will complain to Wiki about your decision to remove factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:SYNTH. You personally thinking that it's noteworthy doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia - it's your own opinion that it's interesting and nothing more. If you can find a reliable source posing the same question, then it may become suitable for inclusion. Frickative 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a simple 1-line comment this seems to be taking on a world-changing aspect. Just thought it was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) If you remove this post I know you have something to hide and I will expose it. Leave this in place and no-one will ever see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? anemone│projectors 22:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologize to everyone for my previous outburst as I was annoyed at the idea that my comment was considered unimportant. Having looked through the history pages of various articles I have realised that it is a waste of time trying to edit any Eastenders pages as any edits made by outsiders are almost always immediately removed - Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The reference to Danielle in the introduction " a girl who befriends Stacey Slater" seems incredibly bland as though this was the only notable thing in her first few months and does not reflect the storyline. This may have been relevant when she first arrived but now seem ridiculous. Would it not be better to change this to something like " a girl who arrives in Walford looking for her birth-mother and who befriends Stacey Slater"? - Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't she left the soap?[edit]

She's left - right? So why isn't the date of her last appearance noted? 83.71.16.196 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Janus hasn't left the cast. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOU stuff[edit]

Do you think a portion of Dannielle's article would be suitable for this page?GunGagdinMoan 23:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline stuff might be, yeah. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I mean OOU stuff relating to the storyline.) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Womack[edit]

Someone changed a couple of Januses to Womacks, so I've changed the rest, but should we note that she was Samantha Janus, in case of confusion for people looking at old references that still say Janus? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think she should remain as Janus, as that's her common name. Why she have to ruin our articles by changing her stage name. tut!!! 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Her article has changed - I brought up the common name thing on her talk page and it went to RFC and it was decided that Womack is her most commonly used name as Janus is no longer her name at all - so we should reflect that change here. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to mention she was Janus then, for refs. Maybe a sentence saying fromn 2007 -2009 she was credited as Janus but from 2009 onwards as Womack. This may mean that some of our other articles should be changed then, like the actor who plays Ali, as he's changed his name since he was credited.GunGagdinMoan 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's worth changing for him if he changed his stage name after he left the show. People clicking on his name will see that it's changed, as I just did. But I agree Janus needs a mention. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy[edit]

I am astounded at the number of reverts that have to take place because people are unable to use punctuation, capital letters or even split up an argument into sentences. Is this an indictment of the education system over the last 20 or 30 years or is it a reflection of the SMS society where anything goes? Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea but it's terrible. Maybe it says more about the average EastEnders fan (who uses Wikipedia) than anything else. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me ye two are going on as if ye are the quuens of EastEnders on Wikipedia thinking ye are higher then everyone else but ye are not so get oof your high-horsesbrian moore (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we were simply having a discussion. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ya right and another thing i want to know who deleed the page i made on buildings EastEnders!!! brian moore (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sources go here :)[edit]

This mentions the rape and that it will be brought up again. Nothing is mentioned of the rape in the development section, so I think it's a good idea. AnemoneProjectors 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bye[edit]

Front cover of tomorrow's Sun has "Sam quits Enders over baby swap". I can't put it here because the link I have is blacklisted but in about 22 minutes the article should be available to read on the Sun's website. AnemoneProjectors 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG no way! Any chance of a link? --GSorby Chat with Me! 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone shared it on twitter via yfrog, which is blacklisted try copying yfrog.com/f/h3dqowpj/ to your browser. It'll be from one of the sites that shows tomorrow's front pages, but I don't know who does that. AnemoneProjectors 23:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anemone, you know the sun is quite known for lying a lot...that could be false --GSorby Chat with Me! 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it could be false, and I hope it is. AnemoneProjectors 23:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same, she's a fab actress. To be honest, I reckon it is false because how would the sun get the story first? It's usually DS or InsideSoap mag... --GSorby Chat with Me! 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Half the time DS just copy what the tabloid rags put out (though they are very good about actually getting the truth afterwards). And Inside Soap won't be published for another week, so it's possible. Fingers crossed it's not true, though :( Frickative 23:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, we need to add some OOU on the baby swap storyline. But it's all in James/Tommy's bit anyway... if she has quit over it it especially needs to be added. And I doubt the Sun has got it first, but these things are always embargoed until after midnight, so DS may be reporting it soon as well. It's just that tomorrow's front pages have been published, the same thing happened when 6 cast were axed last year - we found out first from a Sun front page image. AnemoneProjectors 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right I keep meaning to ask you, what's OOU standing for? --GSorby Chat with Me! 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out Of Universe, opposite of In Universe. https://twitter.com/theboylatch/status/22801017192058880 AnemoneProjectors 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News of the world guy seems to think it's not over the cot death.. [3]RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same as I just posted :-) AnemoneProjectors 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't let me post it, edit conflict, this section just got popular. Shame, Ronnie's great and always been my favourite outta the two. It would be silly of her to go over one SL or because of the backlash.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/soaps/3333423/Samantha-Womack-quits-EastEnders-over-cot-death.html AnemoneProjectors 00:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail, Digital Spy. Note that both are quoting The Sun. AnemoneProjectors 01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But also note "A spokesperson for the show has yet to confirm the report." This makes me think we shouldn't list her as departing until the BBC confirms it. AnemoneProjectors 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'd say we should hold off until there's official comment from the BBC, Sam Womack or similar - as it is, it seems to be all cloak and dagger unnamed insider stuff at the moment. Frickative 01:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, although the BBC did confirm Ronnie's departure, they never gave reasons. I missed it but apparently Womack's statement was just read out on Radio 5 Live and they said her contract ends in May so she'll leave then, but it's just a break and she will be back. AnemoneProjectors 14:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, she's just like Jean? She will be returning after she's gone? --GSorby Chat with Me! 14:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News. That is what can infer from "taking a break". It could be a 12 month break, we don't know. AnemoneProjectors 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTW say she is definetly coming back next year.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 13:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to copy/paste the relevant section of the article, Rain? It's giving me their new paywall screen, and I don't really want to register! :) Frickative 13:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DS have covered it now. [4] so on top of what they quoted, the NOWT says: --- Our source added: "The plot will have Jack and Ronnie separating when Sam is on her break.
"However, the plan is to bring them back together." But Sam's decision will stun the 13,000 furious fans who complained about the harrowing baby drama after learning of her unhappiness. But she could be back as early as April 2012. The source said: "Ronnie's return will be a huge ratings boost so the producers are working towards that." ---RAIN*the*ONE BAM 14:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Reading the DS coverage, my thoughts are that, as this comes from an unnamed source and the BBC spokesperson won't officially comment, we should continue to hold fire on listing her as returning until we have something official. If this becomes widely reported, it might be appropriate to mention it neutrally, ie "Several publications reported that Womack will return in 2012. The BBC Press Office confirmed that storylines would be left open for Ronnie to return, but declined to comment further." Frickative 14:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Barbara Windsor was reported several times to be returning in 2012 but now we know she isn't. These things are too far ahead to be confirmed. –AnemoneProjectors– 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club owner?[edit]

Let's head this off at the pass before someone ends up pulled up for 3RR. Does Ronnie still own a share in the club or not, and how do we know? Thanks. Frickative 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she did sell her share to Jack, meaning Jack would have owned 100% of the club, but then she and Roxy went into business with Jack at the club, and when he sold his share to Phil he only had 60%, meaning the other 40% was most likely shared betwen Ronnie and Roxy. But the only thing that was stated was that they went into partnership, so we don't know for sure where the other 40% went. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rightyho, thanks! So, just to make sure I understand properly: Roxy and Ronnie went in on the club with Jack in 2010. It wasn't explicitly stated whether they re-bought shares or not, but by 2011, Jack only owned 60% of the club? If that's right, do you have any idea roughly when in 2010 they went into partnership? I'm pulling up a couple of sources, so I just want to narrow the time frame down a bit. Frickative 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
August 2010. Thankfully R&R (EastEnders) is fairly well detailed :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 22:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot that article existed, thanks! Well, in that case, there are applicable sources from August and November 2010 calling Ronnie a club owner. Can't really search the opposing side - I'm not sure 'Ronnie EastEnders not a club owner' would pull up anything helpful, but FWIW, the only hit for "manager" rather than "owner" is from Oct 2008. Frickative 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the Daily Mail source is definitely saying she's a club owner at that time, because that's how they report - rather than calling her a club owner because she has been one at some point. They would have put "former club owner". –AnemoneProjectors– 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I don't think there's any point of starting this! But just in case, I wanted to ask would it be good to have an image of a final appearance? I have an image of Ronnie from her final episode. Shall I upload it? ..George Sorby • Talk • Contribs .. 21:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? –AnemoneProjectors– 11:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I asked... ..George Sorby • Talk • Contribs .. 14:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see any reason for it to be uploaded, I wondered what your reasoning would be... –AnemoneProjectors– 14:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Womack interview[edit]

Sam Womack will be on the One Show tonight. Not sure if she will talk Ronnie but it may be worth a look.RaintheOne BAM 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were some things that she said that may be relevant to the baby swap storyline (article still being worked on!) I was hoping Digital Spy would report on it. Not checked yet. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Step-mother etc.[edit]

Although I largely agree with AP's recent reversion [5], because Peggy wasn't really treated much like a step-mother (or Ronnie like a step-daughter), it should be noted that officially that would have been the case; the term 'step' does not have to imply 'bringing up a child'. I myself have a step-father (gained when I was 18) and indeed my mother has a step-mother too (gained when her father was 82!). It's all relative I suppose. :) Anyway, comments are welcome as to whether the article' infobox should reflect Peggy's relationship with Ronnie. Stephenb (Talk) 11:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a step-father, gained in my 20s. I generally think of him as my mother's second husband than my step-father. But that's besides the point. For EastEnders articles, we've usually used the step-field for when a spouse brought up a child and was a parental-figure to them. In some cases this could be as an adult (Chrissie Watts is listed as a step mother to Den's children, by consensus). But as for Peggy and Ronnie, I feel theirs was more of an aunt-niece (note: by marriage and not to be listed) relationship, especially as the relationship existed long before Archie and Peggy married. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Is this right that we have an image of the actor out of character in the infobox? GunGagdinMoan 00:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gungadin - Nope - Removed. –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alias: Diane O'Brien[edit]

I don't remember this. When did Ronnie use the alias Diane O'Brien and is it notable enough to be listed in the infobox? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user added the alias in this edit if that helps. Soaper1234 - talk 21:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was in May 2017, after Ronnie had died, so that suggests that it's not notable. I shall remove it. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 15:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Ronnie's Middle Name: Elizabeth[edit]

think this should be included as it has been mentioned on the show

Actors[edit]

The general consensus has always been that actors who have portrayed a character in anything other than a main role such as a flashback do not have the same billing as the main actor. The portrayer of Ronnie for example has always been Samantha Womack, and does not need this laying out in terms of years portrayed or in the caption of the picture as would be done if different main actors had portrayed a character. 2A02:C7C:9AC8:6900:A994:AA9A:E3E8:3A4D (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If another actor plays the character in "anything other than a main role", then we need to list that in the years and image caption. If we don't, it implies that Womack reprised the role in 2022. – Meena • 14:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it implies with the actor listed as having played the character in 2022 that she was played by Womack in all other instances? Steve McFadden wouldn’t need to be listed as playing a character in certain years as the credit of Daniel Delaney shows that he only portrayed the character in that instance without the need for other bits of information 31.124.107.109 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Steve McFadden *DID* play the role in 2022, whilst Womack and others did not. Plus, it is only a caption and a small line (2007–2017) – it's not hurting anyone? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronnie_Mitchell&oldid=1208889173"