Talk:James Rorimer

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Metropolitan Museum of Art C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Metropolitan Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of ArtMetropolitan Museum of Art articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Under the trivia section it says he wore combat boots constantly. This must be clarified, as it is likely to be factually incorrect. Can you verify he wore them even while bathing, swimming, sleeping etc? It is practically impossible to wash one's feet while wearing combat boots, so this statement implies he never washed his feet after World War II. This UPSETS me!Jörg Vogt 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, "constantly" should naturally be read as "habitually", or "on all occasions on which one would normally wear other footgear." I like "habitually," so I'll edit it to there. The source for this item is Thomas Hoving's book, listed in "References". In this case, Hoving is a primary source. -- Docether 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy April FoolsJörg Vogt 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make disruptive changes or claims in Wikipedia. It's not good practice, and it irritates other editors, who are required to assume good faith while reverting your changes, April 1st or not. -- Docether 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to be disruptive, I was genuineley upset by the word constantly. I only tried to make it look like an april fool joke after you explanation made me look like an uptight weirdoJörg Vogt 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]