Talk:Bob Uecker

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

Untitled[edit]

Should his quotes be given a WikiQuote page? There certainly are many of them, and we've only scratched the surface here. --Chancemichaels 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Might be a good idea to transfer them to WikiQuote. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace[edit]

Banwo recently changed Uecker's birthplace from Milwaukee to Chicago. Are there any sources for that? Everywhere I look (World Almanac, NNDB, IMDB, The Baseball Cube) says Milwaukee. --BaronLarf 14:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah agree, i have never seen a source that says otherwise. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Banwo and Wahkeenah have said that he was born in Illinois; Banwoo said that he said it was on the Tonight Show, which aired on May 5, according to TV.com, and Wahkeenah said it was in his HOF speech. I have no transcript from the Tonight Show speech, but the HOF speech which you can find here does say he was born in Illinois — while his parents were on an Oleo run, and that he was 10 ounces and that a baseball scout was there and said he had a chance to play. I mean, can we believe this, or was the Illinois thing just a setup for a joke? I mean, the baseball almanac, which hosts his HOF speech, still has his birthplace listed as Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I don't have any transcript for the Tonight Show, but I would imagine that he said it in the same joking way. Should we believe his jokes or all the reference books?--BaronLarf 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I qualified my comments. Uecker has made so many jokes about his life and career that it's a little hard to separate truth from fiction (although it's statistically verifiable that he was a lousy hitter by major league standards, maybe even worse than Dal Maxvill, though not quite in Casey Wise territory). However, although the stuff about the "Nativity scene" is obviously a joke, he didn't have to have been in Illinois for it work. Someone needs to get hold of a copy of Catcher in the Wry and see if he said anything about it there and whether it has the ring of truth. Wahkeenah 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Oleo run to Illinois was indeed a Wisconsin tradition; back then, it was illegal to buy or sell butter substitutes in Wisconsin, due to the influence of the dairy industry. So this joke would ring true to people from those days, and does depend on Illinois for it to be told. And I'm sure that Catcher in the Wry is probably told in a joking fashion, too. I suppose it may depend on getting a birth certificate to settle it. Cheers --BaronLarf 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, Oleo is now eschewed as bad for one's health. To bad the state didn't think of that argument when it passed its protectionistic law. However, it was cheaper, and that was why people bought it. Of course, governments don't engage in protectionism nowadays. Yeh, right. Well, good luck finding Ueck's birth certificate. Wahkeenah 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the quotes says Illinois, not chicago, says they were on the way back from chicago, so he could have just as easily been born in Evanston, so i dont tthink we should say he was born in chicago, it does not match the quote. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the article only says "Illinois". It could be further elaborated upon, upon further evidence (if any). Wahkeenah 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the time it stll stated chigago. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found my copy of Catcher in the Wry, which was published in 1982. He tells the same story. However, the appendix, with his career records, says he was born in Milwaukee. I think the Illinois story is one of his jokes. It reminds me of the joke that Dizzy Dean supposedly pulled. Three different reporters interviewed him one day, each of them asked where he was born, and he gave each of them a different answer. When questioned about, he said, "I wanted to give each of them fellows an exclusive story!" I think we should change the article back to Milwaukee and footnote it with his "alternate version". Wahkeenah 01:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agree, not saying that the story is not true, i mean back then he could have been born in Il and not had the birth registered untill they got back to Wisconsin or something. But i would guess that if it were so the case, even with the Ucker, that you would think he would have had the information corrected on the stats or something. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This whole story is kind of intriguing. Not intriguing on the level of the Watergate conspiracy, more like on the level of "boxers or briefs". I wonder how or if one could obtain his birth record? Wahkeenah 03:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it he is still alive, belive you would need his permission. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He might well be more likely to give some nosy questioner a straight answer to the question "boxers or briefs" than to change his birth story. Hopefully the article is worded to most everyone's optimal satisfaction at this point. Wahkeenah 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it depends how you look at where you were "born" at. do you consider it your place of residency and where you were when you were for at least the first few weeks of your life? or do you consider it to be where you were physically born. if it's the latter, then uecker was born in illinois. i changed the article because it was written that him being born in illinois was a joke, which it wasn't. the reason why it says he was born in milwaukee, is because that's where he grew up, and probably was within hours of being born. if your parents were out on a margarine run, would you want your birthplace to be where the margarine was sold, or where your house was? exactly. SilentBob420BMFJ (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he thinks doesn't really matter, it's what the reliable sources say, and with the exception of his own book, in a story that doesn't necessarily have the ring of truth, all the sources say Milwaukee. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every other major source (baseball-reference.com, The Baseball Encyclopedia, imdb.com) has his year of birth as 1935 (not 1934). What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notacynic (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

See the first reference. Tewapack (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1964 World Series[edit]

Added Uecker to the template and the template to this page. He was on the roster, even if he never appeared in a game. Vidor (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of name[edit]

What is the deal with the way his name is spelled out in IPA? I'm very confused. I've only ever heard it pronounced as "yooker" (IPA: ju:kər). Am I grossly misinterpreting the symbols used here? Or do I maybe need to change my character encoding? Or is this just some kind of bizarre mistake? Or, finally, is his name actually pronounced in that very bizarre way? Anyone who knows the answer please help, and/or please fix the IPA spelling (if, as I suspect, it is wrong). Chalkieperfect (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Came here to say the same thing. Seems bizarre. Btw that pipe is not an ell, it's a click? What is he, Xhosa? Chengiz (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 January 2013[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Factsheet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecurityW (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not an edit request, and posting it four times isn't helpful. (I removed three identical posts.) Clearly, you're upset about an image in the article. If you could please explain in plain English what the problem is, someone will be happy to address your concern. Rivertorch (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this was posted four times it was by mistake. The links posted are for specific Wikipedia reference links to legal rules on the use of copyright. There are "special circumstances" and specific issues with images if they involve public figure, privacy, copyright, on Wikipedia that relate to approvals and permissions. If you read through it, it is significant for Wikipedia's legal protection.

Wikipedia is a fair use website. There was no abuse or vandelism, whereby action of a user required freezing a Wikipedia public page from individuals public access. No issue reviewed by us warranted that. If you have an issue with what you suspect of multiple users, that would have to be addressed with each user, again nothing seemed abusive or determined as vandelism. (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.92.140 (talk) [reply]

I have to say you're not making a lot of sense. I know perfectly well what the links are to. What you haven't explained is how they relate to any image being used in the article. Please explain that, and please use one Wikipedia account only. You attempted to sign this post manually with a non-existent account name while logged out, which is confusing. (Read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry if you don't know why that's a bad idea.) The page was protected because you and/or other parties were making disruptive edits and failing to explain what you were up to. Now would be a good time to explain. If there's a legitimate issue involving copyright or fair use, it would be great to clear that up. Rivertorch (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity the image at dispute appears to be [1] which has been removed multiple times by different accounts. However the explanations offered don't make sense nor doe the above explanation. Fair use is not involved here. And the rights and responsibilities of reusers are completely irrelevant. So is the Creative Commons licence since the image involved is not claimed to be under the Creative Commons licence. Instead the image is stated to be in the public domain in the US due to the nature of the law. Unless the details are disputed, either it is claimed that the image was not published in 1962 (or otherwise before 1964), or it is claimed that the copyright was renewed, I don't think there can be any dispute it is in the public domain. There is no such thing as a 'Private Copyright Exclusion Clause' in the US, nor can a 'Public - Copyright Change' be made of a public domain image by an individual. And a photo can't be a private photo if it was publicly published with the copyright holders permission. (And in fact, my understanding is a private photo from that era is even less likely to have any copyright protection by now.) In other words, if there is any merit to remove the image, it's not likely to come from a copyright standpoint. Incidentally, if the copyright status of the image is really incorrect, the proper cause of action is deletion of the image not simply removing it from this page. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 April 2013[edit]

Please change Uecker currently teams with Joe Block to call games on WTMJ in Milwaukee and the Brewers Radio Network throughout Wisconsin. Uecker is best known for saying his catchphrase "Get up, get out of here, and gone!," when a Brewers player hits a home run.

to

Uecker currently teams with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Block">Joe Block</a> to call games on WTMJ in Milwaukee and the Brewers Radio Network throughout Wisconsin. Uecker is best known for saying his catchphrase "Get up, get out of here, and gone!," when a Brewers player hits a home run

providing link to Joe Block page from Bob Uecker page (partners in Milwaukee Brewers commentary) FragileRock (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—and a bit more, while I was at it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 October 2013[edit]

Please remove our PRESSWIRE PHOTO. Someone unauthorized has inserted the photo in the last thirty days. Here is the entry: File:Bob Uecker.jpg|thumb which appears under the HONORS section of the page.

Please note that proper proceedures were followed over six months ago to remove our copyrighted photo. We don't understand how someone could add it again. PLEASE kindly remove it. We would appreciate it. Berniebrew (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That picture was uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons by someone who claimed it as his own work back in June 2012. Whatever procedure you followed six months ago must not have been all that proper since it did not result in the image being removed from the Commons. Contact Commons:OTRS to establish you are the copyright holder and to request the removal of the image. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Proper procedures most certainly were not followed over six months ago. Sockpuppets were used to edit war, with various incoherent non-explanations provided in edit summaries and on this talk page. That disruption is why the article remains semi-protected to this day. Now, it would appear that the "wrong version" was protected and no one noticed, so the recent reinsertion of the image was entirely understandable (and within policy). Celestra is correct; the image is hosted at Commons and must be deleted there if it meets the criteria for deletion. Personally, if I were active at Commons, I'd be dubious. It's rather incredible that a company like Presswire cannot bother to figure out the legitimate way to assert their own copyright. Rivertorch (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Photo[edit]

PRESSWIRE is requesting removal of unathorized distribution of game day, copyrighted photo. It somehow was reinserted after seven months previous issue in February 2013.

(cur | prev) 18:47, 14 September 2013‎ Delaywaves (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,222 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Add photo.) (thank)


64.134.175.12 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC) PRESSWIRE[reply]

Not done: (Two duplicate requests removed.) This is not the right place to deal with a copyright claim. Please contact Commons:OTRS to establish you are the copyright holder and to request the removal of the image. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014[edit]

why is the page on Bob Uecker semi protected and who is protecting it. Our library club group was submitting updates and now are locked out. Cubclark (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was semi-protected nearly a year ago due to persistent sock puppetry. As long as the page is protected, you can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template to request that changes be made to the article if you are unable to make them yourself. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Uecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The way to catch a knuckleball"[edit]

The quote "The way to catch a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up.", which has been attributed to Uecker seems to be apocrvaphyl. The only citation I can see in a reliable source is this one from the Washington Post, which seems to be a throwaway line.snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. He used that very line in his Hall of Fame acceptance speech, which you can view and listen to on YouTube. And I believe you used it earlier on the Johnny Carson Tonight Show. Soccerref99 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023[edit]

81.170.97.88 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wives[edit]

His first wife and second wife seem to be reversed. 162.236.248.205 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Uecker&oldid=1212687484"