Talk:UVB-76/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Voice message in 2010?

I've found a recording of a message in the discussion: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread544367/pg1

It says "UVB-76. UVB-76. 22-727-2. 52-31. 10-81. 2-2-7. Konstantin-Olga-Pavel-Anna. 5-2-3-1. 1-0-8-1." or something like that. Can anyone check it? Is it real? Edwin33 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Instance of Voice Message?

I can't argue for the authenticity of this, but it seems genuine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSN8ebNTXaY It's dated September 29, 2009, which I do not see listed as one of the three known instances of voice transmission. 24.197.254.240 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should be looked into. it looks and sounds legit.

Sounds real, great catch. It's a youtube video though, put it in the article but say it is unconfirmed99.236.221.124 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Link this article!

This article was almost impossible to find, I had to search for half an hour. I'm going to try to link it to some other numbers station pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.31.69 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a numbers station though ... ? 24.86.122.245 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article at Radio Station UVB-76? Is there another UVB-76? Why is the S capitalized? —Nit/nosepicker 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved to UVB-76; I'll put a tag on it and see if anyone objects. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the move. Sv1xv (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved. ›mysid (☎∆✎) 10:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First voice transmission

Are there any recordings of the station's first(known) voice message available out there? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation of 2001 conversation

I think the translation of the 2001 conversation may be misleading. I could also be rendered as, "I'm (number) 143. I'm not receiving the oscillator." Reply: "Such [some?] work is taking place from [in?] the operating room." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.1.109 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I translate as: I'm the 143. I did not see/get signal from generator. The special work is in progress in equipment room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.136 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All is simple

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=ru&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fuvb76%2Fuvb76.html&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.202.18 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That GeoCities page is no longer working. Here's the same thing, but via the archive.org: 2003, 2007. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

UVB-76 has STOPPED broadcasting!

UVB-76 has stopped broadcasting. I can confirm this as well as many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.84.3 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Relorian, 5 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The station known as UVB-76 is currently not broadcasting. This fact should be placed on the page

Relorian (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity over the last 3-6 hours.. Anything from silenve, to conversation, to numbers, and even the sound of hydraulic pumps.. Just to let interested people know, that it might be found at a reliable source soon.--87.56.171.189 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just found this post. Check it out for yourself. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread579556/pg1 Srsguy93 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

UVB-76 is no longer broadcasting!

Many sources confirm this. Some are listed below. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/06/032235/Mysterious-Radio-Station-UVB-76-Goes-Offline http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread579556/pg1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.0.133 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't yet see any reports of this by WP:RS -- if you find any, can you post links to them here? -- The Anome (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I'm hearing about it, it went down momentarily and is apparently back up. I wouldn't be too surprised if it was maintenance either being started early or running long (or both). MDenham (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I listened to it yesterday evening/that night, and yes, it was offline. There was a sound like wind, unfortunately I couldn't listen long because I did it via some website which only provides 60 seconds of recording at a time, but some said they heard voices and scratches. I guess it was really because of the storm, would explain the wind-noise. 84.74.174.177 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research warning: Tonight the Buzzer is active, as usual. SV1XV (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Awful lot of chatter from Hamsphere users that UVB-76 is broadcasting a female voice with a series of numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.49.118 (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

HamSphere is a program which SIMULATES an amateur radio receiver, nothing you hear using it is actually being transmitted or received over actual radio waves. They have several faux numbers and utility stations included in the simulation. While UVB-76 may have been down for a maintenance window or due to other conditions, what you hear using HamSphere is NOT a live signal from the station. Also, the "frequency" it can be be found on at present using the HamSphere software is 7015 kHz, (not 4625 kHz) a frequency located in the 40-meter band which is commonly used for CW (aka Morse Code) communications. This rumor appears to have started on the AboveTopSecret website (a suspect source to begin with) and then propagated and mutated out through other sites such as Slashdot and 4chan.

From the HamSphere instructions: "The HamSphere is not a real radio as many have suggested. Everything you see and hear is simulated on a big computer. When you push the PTT, no RF (Radio Frequency) is emitted on any real shortwave band. It is therefore completely safe to click the PTT even if you are not a licensed radio amateur or operator. ... The project was done to simulate a real Shortwave band with QRM/QRN, fading etc." 68.230.193.153 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in lede

"There is much speculation; however, the actual purpose of this station remains unknown" should either be sourced, or changed to "The purpose of the signal, or the station, is unknown". the rest of the language is unencyclopedic and overly dramatic. Id change it but since its in the news a bit, i want to be polite and give someone a chance to source some of the speculation if its notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The speculation is indeed covered in the article, under "Location and function". SV1XV (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.96.133.113, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This sentence is awkward:

"There is much speculation; however, the actual purpose of this station remains unknown."

Change to:

"Despite much speculation, the actual purpose of this station remains unknown."

74.96.133.113 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. SV1XV (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Stopped?

The signal supposedly stopped this morning (June 6 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.147.11 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Still active right now. SV1XV (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirming Sv1xv, I can still hear it on a shortwave in Hannover, Germany using Global Tuners. RogueA (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following text from the article:

On June 6, 2010, UVB-76 stopped transmission suddenly, the first time there is no signal received from UVB-76 since 1982, though appears to be up and running again.

which came with this cite:

"Russian Radio Signal UVB-76 has stopped transmitting.. UH-OH". abovetopsecret.com. 2010. Retrieved June 7, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

since I cannot see any evidence that a forum post on abovetopsecret.com meets the WP:RS criteria as a source.

Have there been any reports of this in WP:RS? -- Chronulator (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Three to four?

The article says 'Only three to four such events have been noted' if they have been noted shouldn't it be a clear number of events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.180.236 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There was supposedly a 4th transmission that was recorded, uploaded to youtube, and put into Wikipedia on the same day. However, the video and the wikipedia article were suddenly deleted one day. We don't know what happened. Commissarusa (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• i've seen rumours of a fourth voice transmission as well but haven't heard anything or read any transcriptions aside from that abovetopsecret.com thread. i did however find a youtube video with a recording of the buzzer station apparently also transmitting morse code and data bursts though that could be just jammed frequencies. i'll post the video here as well anyway. [1] the video claims the morse code was recorded on june 6th and the voice transmission happened "just days before the morse code transmission". see what you guys think. MrRandomPerson (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Buzzing returns

In the article, it says that the high pitch noise has been continuing since June 2010. Indeed it has, but the buzzer has been drifting in and out of it, explaining the "foghorn sounds", maybe...anyways, should someone make note that it is indeed buzzing? 70.100.231.253 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Only three times?

How can it be said with certainty that the voice has been transmitted three and only three times? Shouldn't the article just say that there are three known instances of voice transmission?

I agree, we should change slightly the syntax.

Sv1xv (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out. This might be the fourth known instance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSN8ebNTXaY

Translation: 9-8-4-Anna-Lena-*someone*-Ivan-Dimitrij-Michail-4-2-6-7-2-8-9-7

• Bear in mind that there are folk listening to this almost constantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychokinetic (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

New voice 25/08/2010 7:50am GMT

http://www.justin.tv/rampageturke/b/268931775 around 32 minutes in.221.146.70.242 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Accent

What exactly is a heavily Jewish accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.183.235 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not politically correct and, at best, ambiguous. Accents are usually described by either another language or a region. "Jewish" is neither, and this is certainly a over-generalization in the same way that any other ethnic or religious group cannot be said to have the same accent across all languages and places. I suggest that this be changed to "Yiddish accent" or just removed. Someone who would be able to discern an accent in Russian should make the decision. Spacexplosion^[talk] 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

old information that someone with Russian knowledge could find quite useful ... the numbers within the transmissions match what is on the current page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030414090619/http://www.geocities.com/uvb76/uvb76.html

edit, some of the values are greater than 90 degrees (meaning may not be co-ords)

hopefully, you'll find it useful interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdraheim (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

STOP mixing up UVB-76 with UZB-76!!! Link #5 refers to UZB-76 not UVB-76 so the whole article should be revised!!!

STOP mixing up UVB-76 with UZB-76!!! Link #5 refers to UZB-76 not UVB-76 so the whole article should be revised!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.96.61 (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Cyrillic, but Google Translate indeed indicates this reference is in regards to UZB, not UVB. I'm removing the section (which was Slashdotted today, FYI). -Verdatum (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I removed it, the link in question was http://web.archive.org/web/20030414090619/http://www.geocities.com/uvb76/uvb76.html -Verdatum (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From what i know, there is no "UZB-76", its just a typical translation-issue. UVB-76 == UZB-76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.241.221 (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Circular Referencing

Reference #12 leads to a Slashdot Article which leads to this page which leads to the Slashdot article which leads back to this page. I'm removing it. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

It was re-added apparently, removed by me, and re-added again to external links. I'm removing it again.128.111.239.97 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, somebody beat me to the punch. 128.111.239.97 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources for confirmed transmissions?

Many of the supposed "transmissions" listed in the Recent Events section could be attributed to atmospheric phenomenon causing interference with the radio signal, and contain no citations validating their claims. It would be wise to establish a source for further confirmation of transmissions (I'd nominate the site uvb-76.net, as its owner is the one running the UVB-76 streams and was one who confirmed the previous transmission). Doug52392 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Major changes/cleanup/evidence needed

The changes I'm about to make are not going to be popular given the excitement over UVB-76 right now, but I think they need to happen. Rationale follows (I'll sign each section so it's not difficult to see who's talking):

(First, you might want to have Chrome or some other browser with an auto-translate extension before we go through some links. I admittedly don't know Russian, but anyone that does know would be an immense help to verify what I'm saying.) Jason Patton (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that voice messages on UVB-76 are *not* uncommon

This link (in Russian), despite being a (former) Geocities site has some of the best documentation of the station. Scroll down to the section headed "РАДИОГРАММЫ" (Google translates this to Radiogram). Here we have 23 examples of voice messages over a 7 year span (1997-2003). They're nearly all in the 5 digit (or 2+3 digit), word, 4 digit (or 2+2 digit), 4 digit (or 2+2 digit) format that's also been seen in recent messages (at least the ones that are clear). And despite being, yes, a Geocities site, we can verify some of the transmissions and information on it against some of the "verified transmissions" (by the ever-so-slightly more reliable sources already cited) already in the wiki article. For example:

"21:58 UTC on December 24, 1997 … '18008. BROMAL ... 742, 799, 14'" matches with "25.12.1997 01:02 18008 Бромал 7427 9914"

"September 12, 2002 … '62691 Izafet 3693 8270'" matches with "09.12.2002 07:18 62691 Изафет 3693 8270". Note how the Geocities site even has times, though seemingly not in UTC. These should probably be converted before inclusion in the article. Jason Patton (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to help finish off/prettify the following table (using this site and the info already in the article), please do so, I won't be able to mess with this until later this evening. Jason Patton (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your post, but the wikitable was showing up wrong, so I removed it. Plus I believe it is redundant to one that is in the article's history. It is sufficient to link to the edit diff showing where it used to be. -Verdatum (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it may be even better off without it. Jason Patton (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that stations like UVB-76 are *not* uncommon (at least in Russia)

If you read the English version of the Geocities site, the author makes clear that there are some similar military beacons: 5448.0/3765.0 kHz "the Pip", 4325.9/5465.9 kHz "Plavets-41"/"R", and 5473.0/3828.0 "Riabina"/"the Squeaky Wheel". It only takes a quick Google search to see just how similar the modes of operation are for these stations, along with "UVB-76"/"the Buzzer" (there was even a now defunct station that was nicknamed "The Yelper" that operated similarly)[2][3][4][5]. This is probably the best source summarizing the stations, which includes some quoted material attributed to a book on Jamming by Rimantas Pleikys (which is also referenced on the related letter beacons article). Here’s a significant except from the site:

"Rimantas also supplied an overview of the three known standard voice message formats of the Russian military HF channel marker stations 'the Pip', 'the Buzzer', and 'R'. All transmissions are live, non-computerized, mostly male voices, repeated twice, in the Russian language.

The purpose of the control messages is to check a readiness of the operators at the receiving (network) stations. The received message content, or a special reply message, must be repeated back on the return link. This can be a MW or SW link, a telephone line or a satellite link. In the cases of the Pip and 'R', the final message phrase 'v priyom' ('over') means that the station is waiting for the quick answer."

While this doesn't rule out UVB-76 having a dual purpose, such as some sort of dead man's switch, it means that most likely these voice transmissions people have been hearing aren't signaling the end of the world. As such, we should get rid of all the silly speculation in the article about locations and websites. It's far far far less likely for those to be explanations for anything and are just cluttering the article. Jason Patton (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Background Music

At approximately 20:18 UTC, there was some relatively loud music playing in the background of the buzzer. It's hard to make out exactly what it says. Can anyone else confirm hearing this? 67.81.168.108 (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Separate fact from interpretation

Let's assume all interpretation of UVB-76 signals is garbage. The article is then left with unobjectionable content: UVB-76's location, a description of sounds, an incomplete list of timestamped voice messages, and reliable sources describing UVB-76's role. If a reliable interpretation source is found, I vote we lift that from the garbage and post here before inclusion in the article. We may want a separate article for interpretation. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 06:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The location is based on sources or reproduction of sources that seem to be debatable when things like verifiability is concerned; one of the locations cited does indeed show what could be a radio mast, another shows a building; but what can for sure say that one or the other has anything to do with UVB-76? The description of the sounds normally heard are hardly notable, though unusual; reliable sources demonstrating widespread or reasonable interest would possibly be needed to grant the notion of notability; as far as sources on the station's role, the sources we have on that are the same as those on the location.

To be sure, the station intrigues me, and on a personal level, I'd like to see everything that we have stay--I'm willing to give leeway on guidelines. But we run into policy issues here (WP:V for sure, WP:NOR possibly as well), and the wiggle room there is slim. Unless a new source or more mainstream interest in this comes about, this may end up being a losing battle. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mirror policy?

Some users are linking to mirrors of recordings, presumably to ensure high availability of the source. Without a Wikipedia policy explicitly discouraging linking to source mirrors, I'd vote these mirror source links be left to stay unreverted in the article. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks seems to concern mirrors and forks of Wikipedia itself, not of sources. Any policy experts here? A-Day ^(c)_(t) 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna touch any possible copyright issues, I presume they are a non-issue for this matter. in terms of WP policies & guidelines, the only other concern with such links is the reliability of the content; insuring that it's a non-altered copy. In terms of their use in this article, the concern is that the content is being used as a reference to support a claim. In which case it is a primary source. Using primary sources for things like this is bad because it forces interpretation on the part of the editors, and skews the significance of content. -Verdatum (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, the mirror links are labeled "mirror" and placed immediately after the primary source link. Does that seem kosher to everyone? If there are copyright issues, issues with the mirror not being a duplication of the primary, or issues with the primary itself being an unreliable source, I'd vote we discuss that here before reverting, so the rest of us are on board with that too. But I've been noticing some back and forth on the mirror link without much discussion. Let's all slow down.  :) A-Day ^(c)_(t) 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I inserted the mirror to the last alleged message, as the rghost where it was first surfaced got IE warnings... and was deleted, then edited back iin by someone else (who deleted my mirror), then both links got deleted, wtf?! Here´s the link to my mirror: http://www.mediafire.com/?tyo15683rpbmr9r , It´s a recording of the 25th August message, and simply the file from the rghost link http://rghost.ru/UVB76_250810_11_53_GMT3.wav (use with caution). 77.184.4.102 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rocket detection?

I think i found a possible purpose, the station could be used to spread info on detected rocket launches. Here´s some google translated text from http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://dirty.ru/comments/286709&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjJS2NZqfZCJut-vWpx9bD3TTX6lg http://dirty.ru/comments/286709

Google translate copies the original text along the translated one when copypasting, might not be that bad in this case, if someone speaks russian...

Interestingly, two hundred comments, but only one zemlanin asked quite obvious question - but what unites all the dates include a mysterious garbage? Внимание, ответ. Attention, response. Ну или один из возможных ответов. Well, or one of the possible answers. 24 декабря 1997 г. December 24, 1997 в 16:32 ДМВ с 5–й площадки 2–го Государственного испытательного космодрома Свободный боевыми расчетами космических средств РВСН выполнен пуск ракеты–носителя “Старт–1” с американским коммерческим спутником дистанционного зондирования Земли “EarlyBird 1”. DMW at 16:32 with a 5-th site 2 nd State Test Cosmodrome Free combat crews of space means the SMF to Start Booster Start-1 "with a U.S. commercial satellite remote sensing of the Earth" EarlyBird 1 ".

12 сентября 2002 г. в 10:23 UTC в Космическом центре имени профессора Сатиша Дхавана Индийской организации по исследованиям космического пространства ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) состоялся пуск ракеты–носителя среднего класса PSLV–C4. September 12, 2002 at 10:23 UTC Space Centre, named after Professor Satish Dhawan Indian organizations to explore outer space ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) held a rocket firing a medium-sized PSLV-C4. Впервые в своей практике носитель вывел метеорологический спутник Metsat–1 на геопереходную орбиту (ГПО) For the first time in his practice carrier brought meteorological satellite Metsat-1 in geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO)

21 февраля 2006 года в 21:28:02 UTC со стартового комплекса Утиноура Космического центра Кагосима стартовыми командами Японского космического агентства JAXA осуществлен пуск ракеты–носителя M–V № 8 с астрономическим спутником ASTRO–F. February 21, 2006 at 21:28:02 UTC from launch complex Uchinoura Space Center Kagoshima starting commands the Japanese space agency JAXA performed start launcher M-V № 8 with astronomical satellite ASTRO-F.

Любопытно, не так ли? Interestingly, is not it? Ну а что же произошло 23–го? Well, what happened twenty-third? Немного гугления — и вот пожалуйста: Few gugleniya - and voila:

23 августа 2010 года в 17:57 UTC с ракетного полигона Уайт–Сэндс, шт. August 23, 2010 at 17:57 UTC with a missile test site White Sands, pcs. Нью–Мексико, специалистами NASA выполнен пуск геофизической ракеты Black Brant IX. New Mexico, NASA specialists to Start geophysical rocket Black Brant IX. Основной задачей полета являлось изучение Солнца и его короны. The main objective of the flight was to study the Sun and its corona.

А вот теперь спрашивается — что же такое на самом деле они там запускают? And now I ask - what is actually there, they start? _______ Then i googled for a missile launch on August 25 and guess what: August 25 2010: Iran launches ground-to-ground missile: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iran-Tests-New-Missile-101471109.html Makes sense? 77.186.137.175 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

it makes sense. A quick inspection from the first date reveal :

"On december 24,1997, a midified Russian ss-25 intercontinetal ballistic missile took of from the Svobodny Cosmodrome in eastern Siberia"--190.21.166.179 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)--190.21.166.179 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Any original research left in article?

If so, please remove the original research. If not, please remove the original research tag. Thanks, A-Day ^(c)_(t) 06:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential photo

This was posted 5 days ago on Panoramio. Can we use this to enhance this article in any way? http://www.panoramio.com/photo/31006332 Also, there are some comments in Russian. Can anyone translate? 98.200.241.153 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments are just the people asking if the person taking the picture knows what the facility is for. Lost Cosmonaut (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

English Russia: Inside the Mysterious UVB-76 Station

English Russia posted a lot of pictures: http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/08/28/inside-the-mysterious-uvb-76-station/ No idea how reliable this is. --BeSherman (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting enough, the yellow and red sign that says:

СБОР БОЕВАЯ ТРЕВОГА

Translates as:

COLLECTION (with the sense of gathering together) COMBAT ALARM

If that IS UVB-76, I would be surprised they'd still be using it in that condition. There are several buildings on the UVB-76 site, however, so it could be an "abandoned wing" or something to that effect. Lost Cosmonaut (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is just someone's personal blog since all the posts I looked at including "UVB-76" are tagged as "Funny". Also, at the bottom it says that all material is submitted by the readers. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible explanation

See these references:

• Anisimov, S. V., A. Chulliat, and E. M. Dmitriev (2008). "Information-measuring complex and database of mid-latitude Borok Geophysical Observatory". Russ. J. Earth Sci. 10 (ES3007). doi:10.2205/2007ES000227.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Article also available on the web:

• http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/0.shtml
• http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/1.shtml
• http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/2.shtml
• http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/3.shtml
• http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/4.shtml
• http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/5.shtml

Reference to the 4625 kHz signal on page 2.

Sv1xv (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

While that is the most likely explanation as to what UVB-76 is, it also doesn't make sense because UV-76 isn't part of the Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility (Russia's main Ionospheric Research Complex) which is over 550km east of it. Nohomers48 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that it "doesn't make sense" because there is more to the story? Why must both centers be located within a certain geographical proximity? Webavant (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"doesn't make sense"? Excuse me? Have you read the Location and function section? A dead hand sistem is ok but suddenly a Ionosphere research is too far fetched? I second the motion for adding it to the article. 186.136.162.245 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Forget its location, what REALLY doesn't make sense is the Russian Defense Department creating a "weather complex." MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent unreferenced events

Why were the recent events deleted? I heard most like morsecodes and talking in background, it´s real! Typical Wiki trolls around? Here´s source: http://uvb-76.blogspot.com/2010/08/august-23-2010-935am-pst-voice.html 77.188.13.125 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:Talk page. Blogs are not reliable sources. Spacexplosion^[talk] 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then let someone find a source before deleting their work maliciously and in bad faith: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast-changes 69.201.164.129 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, problem is there are no other sources for this, yet it´s true, i heard it! However, i added a message sent today, here´s source and recording: [6] 77.188.13.125 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the link was removed due to trojans, can´t test this as i have no anti virus program, but you can listen to it via Flash which should be virus free, no need to download anything. Not ideal, i know... Sorry for inconvenience... 77.188.49.201 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent the file aswell as the URL to Virus Total to see if it´s really full of trojans, the report is pending but here are the links, reports should be soon finished:

http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=44f951864a9fd3655f9cbe0b27d96a00bcd500e1ed2b08955d470570dbc2ec2e-1282777705 http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=4559e78862ad23d1019e27abf4098945bc40f698998623194741bebc10886a14-1282777094 http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=4d2eb0f0afdb37c15b6c7dcd80b96e971374b29b3a05acfe510e89a282a5d70e-1282777035 people who tested the file say it´s clean and legit: http://uvb-76.blogspot.com/2010/08/august-23-2010-935am-pst-voice.html (last comments) If the files are clean, please add the link back into the article. :-) 77.188.9.75 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

file is clean according to: http://virusscan.jotti.org/de/scanresult/12c457f42602f5c1c608bfe7378a167c00268490 I´ll add the link back into the article. 77.188.9.75 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

There is, perhaps, one RS cited by the article, not including the dictionary references, which are WP:SYNTHESIS. The remainder is breathless speculation and original research by hobbyists. Geocities websites and email list traffic are not RS. Anonymous reports of radio traffic are not RS. Sources that reference WP (and I think the latest Wired article falls into this category) are not RS. It looks to me like this article is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I think article deletion should be considered on these grounds. The fact that others have already attempted to remove inappropriate material, only to have it restored, and that others have already mentioned this problem without effecting any change of behavior on the part of the offending editors, in my opinion, makes deletion or at least some degree of administrator involvement feasible. I think what many of you need is a blog to post your observations, not an encyclopedia article. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The station itself, prior to the events of the last 3-4 days, had an article that wasn't much (see this version from 19 July 2010), but I would see as acceptable; overall, that would be a discussion best handled at AfD. Based on some of the suspected reasons for this station's existence (i.e., the possibility that it is a numbers station), finding the standard reliable sources is difficult, but that alone shouldn't be sufficient cause for deletion. The material that has come and gone over the past few days is squarely in the realm of Original Research, and should be removed.Aeternitas827 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need for admin involvement just yet. It is generally sufficient in these cases to remove the unsourced information, and if it is reverted back, insist on a justification here. I'm also opposed to deleting the article, since it appears to be notable through independent sources. The fact that the article is susceptible to rot is not much of an argument for deletion, just an argument that users keep an eye on the article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So I removed everything I felt to be unarguably Original Research. I left the reports that were only backed by transcriptions/youtube videos, but I'm wondering if they should be removed as well. It just seems like something too easy to falsify. I'd really like to re-add the conjecture about the dead-man's switch and dead hand system, but a decent source is needed. I suspect this could be found without too much difficulty, as it seems like such as obvious theory that some reliable source must discuss it. -Verdatum (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current version of the page (21:55 (Server time) 26 August 2010) is probably the ideal place for the article to be at the current time. I doubt I'll find much more than is already there that's suitable for inclusion, but I will do some poking around to see. Aeternitas827 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, *now* I think it's somewhere near ideal. I would like to add some info on "The Pip", "The Squeaky Wheel" and the "R" letter beacon sometime, though, since they operate similarly. Jason Patton (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as some Reliable sources can be cited to demonstrate similarity, I wouldn't be opposed; from an observational standpoint, it's sensible, but the correlation should be made externally. Personally, I'm willing to be a bit more open on sources given the mysterious nature of 'The Buzzer', but in the end, it all comes to consensus. Overall, though, I'm glad that this article has more or less stabilized in the last 18 hours or so.Aeternitas827 (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's been some considerable improvement by shortening the article. Geogene (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone want to explain how recordings verifying what the article was saying about transmissions (which were on the page long prior to aug 2010) - as well as links to sites that confirmed the transmissions is "original research"? I will log in, if i ABSOLUTELY must, but i want the rationale behind the huge swath of deletions and semi-protected status. Numbers stations are neither rare nor unsourced, uvb-76 being one or not is irrelevant. If it's not a numbers station, then it doesn't pass the wiki standard of notability and should be removed all-together, and instead should have a listing for 4.625mhz saying "this frequency has buzzing sometimes. no one knows why." - Concerned wiki editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.127.138 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stopped Transmitting?

As of approximately 22:00 UTC on August 27, UVB-76 has stopped buzzing. I didn't change the article because I didn't know whether the web streams from uvb-76.net were considered reliable sources, and I also noticed that a previous change mentioning the lack of a transmission was removed. I know all of these edits are due to the recent spike in station activity, but does the buzzer stop this often normally? Iwishihadabuchla (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the site and its streams are concerned, reliability is questionable; most of what remains in the page has been able to be found elsewhere (the most of it seems to be from reference #7, but I haven't been through all of them). As far as the stream from the blog is concerned, it's more likely that the signal just isn't getting to that reciever at this time (the blog's top/intro section indicates that it is more or less reliably heard from 16:00 - 06:00 GMT), though in my experience it really fades to nothing as early as 00:00-00:30, and is inaudible within an hour or so. That's part of where we're running into trouble, is that that sort of event is being treated as 'it stopped broadcasting', when there is nothing verifiable to indicate this is the case; a stream 900km from the station isn't going to 'hear' the station all the time.Aeternitas827 (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the site is unreliable, as the station has in fact been transmitting the whole time and only a few moments ago has the site's feed picked it up again. Soly (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is more than one station receiving the signal, those other sites were the ones saying that the signal was down, and when the time frame for the 900km one approached, it also could not receive the buzzer. this isn't a propagation issue, they were doing maintenance. I get the concern about original research and all, but because you don't understand something doesn't mean that an edit isn't justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.127.138 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of the policy to have No Original Research, it isn't really a question of the reliability of this stream as a source of information. Information for this article should come from secondary sources. In this case, this would mean reliable sources that are discussing the activity of the stream, not the stream itself (or simulcasts/rebroadcasts/recordings thereof). -Verdatum (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Geocities Links

I question the ability to use the Geocities links [7] [8] as references for facts in this article. I must admit, the pages are nice and authoritative looking. However, I cannot tell to whom the information may be attributed. What entity compiled this information, and how do we know this? Without this information, I fear this source fails WP:RS. -Verdatum (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The lack of knowing who compiled the information makes the source fail WP:V; unless/until some other information can be provided that would clarify this enough to even pass WP:V or WP:RS, it can't be included.

That said, I'm starting to have concerns regarding almost all of the remaining sources/cites. In the references section, #1 gives reference to a link provided by a Jan Michalski (unsure if he's the creator, a contributor to, or just someone who found the info) to the above questionable Geocities link; it's part of a newsletter published by a radio listener/enthusiast group (ENIGMA 2000) whose data is questionable for WP:RS. This might require a little extra digging. Link #6, similarly, refers back to this group, which in turn refers to the Geocities page. 3 and 7 are themselves the Geocities page; #2, #4. #5, and #8 give mostly passing mentions, and is also part of newsletter-type publications for groups (possibly now defunct?) similar to ENIGMA 2000. #9 refers only to a voice event, and doesn't pass WP:RS. #10 is the recording of the 23 August transmission, and is better suited to be an external link. #11 is a link to details of a book, and without digging too much, I really don't see how it touches on UVB-76; the same for #12.

Effectively, this entire article might be unsourced and either reproduction of original, unverifiable research, or original research itself, and notability is questionable. End result here might be to WP:PROD this, or head to AfD.Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason why we may want to consider ENIGMA 2000 as a reliable source in this specific case is because it's a long running group that specializes in shortwave radio oddities, such as these Russian beacons and numbers stations. These stations are secretive by nature, so quite often the only source we can even begin to trust are those that log these transmissions on a regular basis, which is what the group does.

It'll take a little bit of digging--and at this hour of the night, I lack the focus necessary to do so--but my worry is that ENIGMA 2000 may fail WP:V; in particular, we might not want to look at it from a standpoint of WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH (both subsections of WP:V); both could apply to it, and from where I sit, if both apply and it fails one or the other, it can't pass muster under the policy unless the community can come to a consensus that the failed section wouldn't be applicable. That's something that I would be most comfortable in passing through a process like RfC, if there's support for it here. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Geocities stuff does present a problem, though. Outside of the source(s) that cite Rimantas Pleikys (who is for certain a former Communications and Information Technology officer for Lithuiana, see here for example), nothing is going to be authoritative. By the way, you mention how #11 doesn't touch on UVB-76, source #2 paraphrases some point (but where? who knows, ugh) in Pleikys' book where he mentions the purpose of "The Pip", "R", and "The Buzzer" (UVB-76). Anyway, going back to what's an authoritative source... no one is going to be 100% authoritative on the subject by its very nature. It's (likely) a government operation that for whatever reason the Russian government hasn't made available the specific details in any official source (at least that we are able to find). If this speculative nature means that the article needs to head to AfD, that's fine with me. The reason why I got involved with it is just cause I was sick of the really extreme speculation, like the voice transmissions having something to do with locations or websites, or that the "bumps in the night" heard amongst the static meant anything, that nuclear missiles were going to be launched if the station stopped broadcasting (it appears that it goes down every day anyway, but people listening for the first time, which is 99.99% of the people that have found interest in the past few days, wouldn't know that or understand the issues of propagation, etc.). Occam's razor would have a field day with the article in the state that it was in 3-4 days ago. Jason Patton (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If ENIGMA 2000 can pass WP:V, then the Geocities material likely becomes less problematic; as a verifiable source cites it directly, verifiability/reliability can be considered...this might take a more global consensus to be comfortable, but it's more likely. As far as the book is concerned, that I'm more than willing to reserve judgment on until I can possibly see what is written about UVB-76 there and how; I'm not far from my local library, I might take a trip here soon and see if I might be able to get my hands on it (overall, it looks like it might be an interesting read).

As far as authority/authoritativeness goes, this particular article does, indeed, give an unusual difficulty; finding the needed sources is going to be tough. If the sources we are able to find, that pass WP:V at a minimum, can give a fair certainty of the secretive nature (running completely afoul of WP:NOR with speculation, supported or otherwise, is a mighty thin tightrope), then some leeway might be possibly there.

As far as the station going down every day, based on my own listening and what, to me, is consistently reported, there are times where the station's amplitude goes a little low, making it more or less fade out for distant listeners; as well, if you're listening to the stream at uvb-76.com, my observation has been that around 00:30 GMT it dims down, and is inaudible for a while (I'm likely asleep when it comes back in again), based on how shortwave radio propagates...that's more a function of distance and such than anything else.Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, there is no doubt that the Geocities page is unusable (SPS). The only permissable use of an SPS is by a "recognized expert" who has a history of being considered a source by "reliable third party" sources. I don't think it is possible for an anonymous Geocities page to qualify as a "recognized expert", by definition. I think that use of E2K as a source might be defensible as long as we are talking about the newsletter, and as long as the newsletter has something of an editorial board. It seems to me that it does. This is not a great source, but it might be usable.

The way I see it, there are reliable sources and there are unreliable sources, and there's a spectrum of some reliable sources that are barely so or are likely to be challenged. I consider E2K as such a marginal case, and recommend against using it as a to justify SP sources like the Geocities one that have no other claim to reliability. The very small readership inherent in numbers stations sources makes it virtually impossible for any of these sources to be very reliable. We might be able to reach a consensus that E2K is RS but that is always going to be controversial. If E2K stands as RS, this still is not sufficient to make everything E2K cites into a "recognized expert". I think what that "recognized expert" policy means is that if the New York Times, the BBC, and Reuters were all citing this Geocities website, that probably would prove that the Geocities page had enough influence to be considered an expert. This does not mean that one reference from E2K, which may not be RS, has the same weight! Some judgement is called for here; I do not think that the policy is intended to justify everything that one barely reliable sources cites is automatically RS, and that everything that cites is RS, and on and on forever. That would eventually make the entire Web RS.

It has been implied that we should lower our standards a bit because we have trouble with finding reliable sources. I think a view more consistent with the Notability guideline is that trouble finding reliable sources means that the subject may not be notable for its own article. Sorry this is longwinded, hope it adds to the discussion. Geogene (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, i have to stress that if we remove the "voice transmissions" section on the basis of "original research" because of the secretive nature of these transmitters there is then no reason to have an article at all. Just a link to 4.625mhz "may emit buzzing occasionally. no one knows why." vote for deletion of article? - concerned wiki editor

That is why the article's notability is in question. Policy is not to include questionable information to justify having an article, policy is to delete articles that cannot be substatiated with reliable sources. In this case, simply having a stub is reasonable Geogene (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoax Transmissions

According to commentary from the Spooks list, most of the recent activity attributed here to UVB-76 is from pirate radio operators in Europe. There was a Morse greeting from "UVB-76" to the editor of the Numbers and Oddities newsletter, as well as an expletive-laced greeting to another shortwave listener, both identified by name. Also according to traffic on the Spooks list, "UVB-76" was taking music dedications off the dxtuners chat rooms for a while. And no, email lists aren't RS. But since other editors have been using this sort of thing as a source anyway, I think it odd that the same hasn't been mentioned here until now and I am using that as grounds for labeling much of this article an "obvious hoax" and treating it appropriately. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To be completely honest, those Morse transitions were running over the buzzer, so I think Morse can be discredited, as for the numbers and music, I think you had no right in removing that information from this page, whatever is being pirated, it's clear that it will be playing over the buzz, and the numbers clearly were not, the real station is still operating, but it has now seen a change in frequency, probably to battle these pirates. I'm reposing my logs, and for those of you that are logging the station, I truly appreciate your dedication. For the poster here, in the future the better option would be to post that a hoax is afoot, do not go deleting entries carelessly.

TymaxBeta (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Need reliable sources. Where are you guys getting your info from? LokiiT (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Personaly listening to the frequency, the people who are loggers of the numbers station phenomenon take this very seriously, and in most cases are amateur radio operators themselves, we provided recordings from the frequency, and even if the recordings included peices of the hoax, the hoax is still part of the stations histary and should be writen here...

TymaxBeta (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors have every "right" as wells as a responsibility to delete unreliable information, conjecture, and unreliable sources--information which unfortunately makes up a large proportion of this article. I believe it was Ary Boender who said on the Spooks list that, in his opinion, transmissions past the first of September are now unreliable, and that the real UVB-76 went of the air at the end of August. I don't consider Spooks list email reliable (WP:SPS), but he is himself the editor of Numbers and Oddities, which is now the most cited reference in the article. Do you consider N&O unreliable, because what you are saying directly contradicts the chief expert the article is sourcing. Do you even know which alleged transmissions are genuine and which are hoaxes? Also, the hoax is mentioned in the stations history, that does not mean we should present obviously hoaxed transmissions as if they were genuine. By the way, I am also a radio amateur and shortwave listener, and I'm not sure what a ham radio ticket is supposed to do to make one editor more credible than another Geogene (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting "unreliable" sources

Deleting all the "unverified" and inofficial sources (which are of course reliable) would kill this article and my further motivation to work with it. There are no real news sources on this article, that's why UVB-76 so interesting and relevant. I'm pretty angry at the moment. There are some articles which just don't have news sources, but are relevant nonetheless. UVB-76 is such an article. There won't be any newspaper articles about UVB-76. It's a secret, mysterious station. Of course it won't have any reliable sources. --BBF3 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this wired article, is it real? can you add it to the wikipedia page?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast-changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.235.204 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems legit. --BBF3 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the poorly sourced information you've recently reinstated. Wikipedia policy requires information to cite reliable sources. I would strongly suggest that none of the cited sources are reliable in terms of meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policy since they are either personal websites or simply recordings which would seem to border on original research in violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Since you have reinstated this material despite the sourcing problems, I would invite you to explain, with reference to the relevent Wikipedia policies, why the sources given can be considered reliable sources. Adambro (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaints of "killing the article" are not a valid defense for including unreliable sources. In fact, articles that cannot be substantiated by reliable sources should be deleted. In my opinion, the notability of the subject is not well established, interestingly enough the "notability" template is continually being deleted. Geogene (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is y i h8 wikis -.-, mods remove the good stuff, the only reason y i came to this page is because what Adambro wants to delete. im lucky that i got to the page before he removed it, if i didnt i wouldve probably never checked the history and not get the info i needed, the only reason y i went to history is cause i wanted to get that info

Self note: forget about the front page of wikis for now on, next time i will check history first. Dataanti (talk)

I won't miss him. 76.178.228.63 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I've added a discussion for this article's sources to aid in getting determination on reliability of some of the sources used on the page at this time. There have been open/unresolved discussions previously on this discussion page, and the longest-term sources are some of the ones at question here. If anyone has points they can provide as to help determining reliability of these sources (as they relate to WP:RS and/or the related WP:V policy, or would just like to keep an eye on it, the discussion is there at WP:RS/N#References/Sources at UVB-76 Article. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My experience with that noticeboard makes me expect no response. And really, who here thinks a self-published source named "Mike and Sniffy's Radio X-Files" is a reliable source for an encyclopedia article? (Seriously, I'm curious about that.) Do we actually need outside help to sort this out? I'm going to go ahead and delete that one and anything else that's obviously SPS. Geogene (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I'm looking bigger picture. Despite topics being present here for upwards of a week, there's been little comment outside a few concerned parties; even at WP:RSN and at WP:N/N, there's been little happening, and there isn't really a suitable RfC category here. The more I've looked over everything, most of the sources are either unreliable or unverifiable (the latter being more damning), or only serving to provide original research. The loose consensus we've got here is contentious enough that it's worth trying to get an outside opinion, but without that, most sources are able to be cleanly nixed which leaves a completely un-notable stub; I doubt we can even pin down a location for the station with what would be left, let alone establish what it broadcasts and/or if it has any importance. I'll give the discussions a few days, pretty much until the bots sweep them to the archives, but ultimately, I'm tending to think the article doesn't have a place as of the current time...maybe in the future something will come up, it's hard to say. As much as UVB-76 intrigues me, this isn't necessarily the place for something to be simply because it's enigmatic and in vogue. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UVB-76 for more discussion on verifiability, notability, and original research. The consensus seems to be that any issues have been much improved. Please consider channeling your energies into adding even more quality content, especially citations. :) A-Day ^(c)_(t) 07:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Satellite Photo

Currently the satellite photo of the supposed broadcast site has been marked for deletion, however I do not understand why it is considered non-free use. This image can be obtained from any publicly available satellite photo including Google Maps and Bing Maps. Was the existing image obtained in some other way? How can we know that the source from which it was obtained was not free use? Could the image just be replaced with one that is free use? It should be easy enough to find. 12.46.236.142 (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not mark that image for deletion, but clearly it is the intellectual property of Google, and probably a violation of their copyright. In fact, it's about the same quality and resolution as you get from their software. I support deletion. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, File:Uvb76antenna.jpg is in the public domain, being from the US Department of Defense. Is File:Uvb76_satellite.jpg really up for deletion? This is what Google says about use of their imagery:

We're flattered to hear that you're further incorporating Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google.

Is attribution to Google enough, or is Wikipedia a banned service? Not being a lawyer, I cannot speculate, but for what it's worth Google has added a Wikipedia layer to Google Earth, not that this has any bearing on whether or not its permissible for Google Earth images to be in Wikipedia. That said, I don't think Wikipedia sells service contracts, so I would be surprised to learn that Google has an issue with their images being used in Wikipedia. When in doubt, do your homework.  :) A-Day ^(c)_(t) 08:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability Notice Board

The fact that you can't get more than one or two decent sources for this, none of them of any weight, or that any non-radio enthusiast would have ever heard of, shows a lack of notability . I have left a post on the WP:Notability notice board to see if anyone else there agrees. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've also got a discussion open on the Reliable Sources board, as well, no comments from others as yet. Aeternitas827 (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This section is a duplicate of the above #Discussion_at_Reliable_Sources_Noticeboard section. Has this notice board entry been moved to a different URL? I must admit I am having trouble finding it. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 07:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WHERE DID ALL OF THE ACTIVITY INFORMATION GO?

The activity information is more news-y and prone to speculative interpretation. The prevailing effort is to marginalize this on OR and SYNTH grounds. Several admins are actively enforcing these policies and cleaning up the article. Try checking back in a few days — they may have added something you're interested in, with proper citation. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 14:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, it's mostly just regular editors enforcing policies and doing cleanup. Admins haven't gotten into this discussion, and have only made a couple edits in the last month, all of which appear to be them acting in the role as regular editors themselves. -Verdatum (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as they are following Wikipedia guidelines then they are allowed to edit as they see fit until a consensus can be reached. If all the information (both sourced and unsourced) were to be added back it makes the article very clunky, disorganized and unreliable (see this edit). Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You might try forking the UVB-76 article, adding the info you like, polishing it up, and then posting a link here for discussion. Better yet, help improve this fork. Eventually we'll agree on what to present in the main article page. Think of this like working on a software subsystem, making it nice, then lobbying for its inclusion in the mainline. It's rewarding work. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the fork, hopefully all the previous info and new info remains there atleast...LostMK (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

indeed the details of the specific transmissions needs to be a part of this article, and they cannot be considered minutia as they are only 4 or 5 major ones. For a while there people were making a number of un-cited and un-sourced additions and treating the article like a forum/blog. That was no good and should be removed, the minor details of the August 23 event are best left somewhere else. But the major events needs to be put back into the article. 12.46.236.142 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes have place the article in a fairly acceptable state. The last recorded voice message about the signal being spoofed is worth recording, but it remains uncited. It would be good to have a decent an verifiable resource for this, but I really don't know of any other than forum discussions and such. Perhaps a respectable article has been written?

Considering I've been listening to the station since it went down, then went down a 2nd time and then actually listened to them LIVE attempt to fix the transmitter, fail and then have it go down a again until they brought it back up a day ago. If the policy is to not accept 'Original Research' or unverifiable content then just put a stub because Wikipedia is becoming a big joke, if none of the wiki admins or editors would listen to the feed themselves they could justify it being legitimate information. The Russian gov't is not likely going to tell you why the station exists so you ARE NEVER going to get verifiable information!!! 174.112.107.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Morse Broadcasting Now

Currently on the USB Feed at 11:20am EST 14/10/10, morse code is constantly being broadcast. It does not seem to be repetitious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.218.147 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Making a table?

I've been looking at the article and is kind hard of read the exact history (that is, the Buzzer's "changes") of this station, so I propose we create a table to more cleanly show the Buzzer's history.

Yay or nay? --98.197.234.158 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion deleted?

I see that the discussion page was fully deleted! A shame really, there was lots of good info here... I know it was messy, but i don´t think it was that bad. 77.184.28.3 (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was just archived. If you look at the top of the page, just above the links for the deletion discussion, you should see something that says "Archives: 1". Just click there and it'll take you to all of the old discussions that were archived. It is standard practice to archive discussions that have had no new responses in over 30 days. Silverseren^C 21:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah i see, thanks for the tip. I get too excited too easily. :-) 77.184.30.101 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Music transmissions summer 2010

I heard some transmissions of Tchaikovsky's ballet music, followed by a break, some numbers, or names and then coming back to the "normal" buzzer transmission again. Is there anyone else, who observed that transmissions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.18.78.29 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

- UVB-76 gets interference from various European radio stations, sometimes deliberately. Apparently radio pirates have broadcast insulting messages on the signal before to target western listeners, but most interference seems to come from German talk radio/ DRAC250 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what I heard in a forum

If you guys haven't heard, the once thought Numbers Station UVB-76 ("The Buzzer" or "Boat Horn"), has been solved. It's a center for ionosphere research measuring doppler shifts of a continuously transmitted signal. It's broadcast on 4.625Mhz in the shortwave band. The following link has a Russian science "log" with the carrier frequency being 4.625Mhz for ionosphere research.

http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/v10/2007ES000227/2.shtml

If this is the case, why has the station been broadcasting since 1982, and why are Russian Military transmissions broadcast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.215.221 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

MDZhB Transmissions Ect

Lately, we've been trying to edit some things in, but they keep being deleted. UVB-76 is NOT being killed by pirates currently, these are legitimate transmissions, have a look on streams, videos, ect. These are continuously deleted. Can we please keep these on there? I don't know how we can cite it, due to not many legitimate news sources knowing about it, ect. Thanks! PresentedIn4D (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if that information is not discussed in reliable sources, then we cannot add it to the article. Silverseren^C 22:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Did professional radio amateurs + radio groups + many blogs + recordings + reports + study pages (like that or that) didn't sum to be reliable source? That's just trolling. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm somehow supposed to give money to Wikipedia when you have this kind of nonsense politics? Dream on! 174.112.107.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Mmmm politics? I'm sure you must be referring to something other than the topic at hand. PresentedIn4D (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware, however, we have various listeners all around Europe, who all have the same reception reports as to contents of broadcasts. I don't know what you mean by reliable source when it is reported and confirmed by multiple avid listeners. PresentedIn4D (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:V states that reliable sources are required only when the information is likely to be challenged. That said, I don't see any legitimate reason why anyone would challenge the validity of these amateur websites as far as the actual recordings go. LokiiT (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added something of MDZhB, citing the Numbers and Oddities newsletter. Check it out, the october and november newsletters. They have interesting info. PresentedIn4D (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2 2010 14:44:00 UTC voice message

December 2 2010 14:43:00 UTC: MDZhB MDZhB 39 351 Pavel Roman Elena Gregory Roman Anna Dmitriy Anna 80 18 06 57 should be available at the archives soon http://uvb-76.blogspot.com/p/test.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.231.201 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pavel Roman Elena Gregory Roman Anna Dimtriy Anna = Pregrada, a town in Croatia.

Or, you know, it could be this. We can't be sure either way, can we? :) 93.86.184.161 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Messages

We need reliable sources for any messages. Personal websites are largely not acceptable. The recordings that have been linked to aren't acceptable either since anyone could post an audio file on the net and say it is UVB-76. Adambro (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we source Numbers and Oddities? They are very reliable. Also, it is NOT UVB-76 anymore. That callsign has been changed due to the new Western Strategic Command in Russia. It has been changed to MDZhB.PresentedIn4D (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you really consider as reliable source, if you link to old Jan Michalski's geocities page, which contains A LOT of speculations and UNCONFIRMED INFO. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the removal of some content on the basis of it being unsourced/poorly sourced isn't an endorsement of the other sources. I don't doubt there are other sources that shouldn't be considered particularly reliable and therefore content which is based upon those sources should be removed. On the general issue of sourcing for this article, that UVB-76 may be a secret radio station of some description doesn't mean we lower our requirements for information to be properly sourced. Where appropriate sourcing is difficult/impossible we either have a brief article which covers the basics for which there are reliable sources or we simply don't have an article. Adambro (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand what you say, but also the changes of the station have not been talked about, such as the callsign change, the tone changes recently, ect. All the info here seems to be outdated by 2 years or so. PresentedIn4D (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That whole list of UVB-76 messages was translated from cyrillic from Russian Wikipedia, additionaly they are on old geocities page in Russian version. There were over 20 messages nor only 2 in 1997-2003 as you say now. Where are transmissions from August 25, September 5 and 10? The best reliable source is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What you confirm from geocities page? Radio center: 143 (only known source is November 3, 2001 conversation), Military unit: 44684 (there aren't ANY sources saying that, + this is outdated like whole page). This page is often first page where enters person who want to know what is UVB-76. You want donations for something with politics like that? No way. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right that "This page is often first page where enters person who want to know what is UVB-76". That is why it is important, as per fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that information presented here is based upon reliable sources. If, as you seem to suggest, there is other information on this page that isn't supported by reliable sources than I would very much encourage you to remove it. Adambro (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not site 'Spooks' newsletter as being verifiable or a valid source OR reliable source. It's no better than any other amateur listener/source. I suggest removing that also. Unless you can prove to me someone on the spooks mailing list/newsletter worked in UVB-76. Spstarr (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html contains only confirmed info, not SPECULATIONS like GeoCities page, which is RELIABLE SOURCE, as you say. That page say, that first table may contain speculations, but they are minimal. It contains transcripts of ALL UVB-76 and MDZhB transmissions. In other part of it: http://danix111.cba.pl/archives there are even recordings. So I don't really know what is reliable source in your definition. PS: For example of speculations on GeoCities page: Purpose, radio center, military unit, how we know these? PPS: Nothing is wrong that it's part of personal website. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite your assertion that http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html contains only confirmed info, not SPECULATIONS, the website itself states "This table may contain speculations" and there isn't anything to suggest the website it anything other than a personal site which can only be considered reliable sources in exceptional circumstances. You are right that the GeoCities site doesn't look like a reliable source either so it, and any content which can only be sourced to that, shuld be removed. Adambro (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know what is reliable source, delete whole article. http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html doesn't have any attentions now, it's updated daily with new transmissions. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What is considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As is explained there, self-published sources like your personal website, http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html, are largely not considered to be reliable sources. I see nothing particurly special about this situation to make me consider it to be a reliable source as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether the content is "updated daily with new transmissions" isn't relevant here. Adambro (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename due to callsign change

The station has changed its callsign a couple of months ago. The old one seems to be no longer in use. I know that this may sound silly, but should we rename the article? --Edwin33 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, SOME people (ahemadminsahem) want it to be cited that this happened, because it turns out, radios lie to us ;)! PresentedIn4D (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires its information to be verifiable, which means that it needs to be included in reliable sources as to prove the information. This isn't a blog or a fan Wiki where anyone can add in information, it's an encyclopedia. You have to prove through reliable sources that you are including correct information, since we can't just accept your general word on the matter. If only the world was that trustworthy. Silverseren^C 18:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Who would prove it? British scientists? Forget it. They wouldn't waste time on this station. But amateurs would do. And if not, who can prove that the station exists at all? --Edwin33 (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There are already reliable sources utilized in the article, which shows that some professionals do take notice. You just need to wait until an article comes out in a reliable source about the change. Silverseren^C 22:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So, what about many, many people listening to the station and reporting it, how is that NOT reliable. PresentedIn4D (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You would have to give me an example, but I would presume that they are not reliable sources. As has been already stated, if they are amateurs on the subject, then they do not have the professional discretion that is required for their word to be reliable in this field. That's why we rely upon reliable publications for information, because there is editorial fact-checking on multiple levels for such publications that makes the information verifiable and likely to be true. The word of a random listener of the station does not fulfill any of that criteria. Silverseren^C 01:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Enigma 2000. Numbers and Oddities. Both are very respected in this field. Along with us who listen to it live all the time. We log these transmissions daily. The website that has been edited in here recently is simply a collection of all known voice messages. We have a stream on the UVB-76.net website which rebroadcasts the station live. Along with this, I have been in calls with people who are receiving the message live on the radio on the buzzer frequency. PresentedIn4D (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need to rename this article from UVB-76 to MDZhB, actual callsign. You, admins, need to listen to all these recordings of messages (http://danix111.cba.pl/archives - here are all collected). Best source for you are only commercial websites? Forget it! For what f... are all these study pages (at least http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html - the most actual one, based on work of whole community of UVB-76) Along with this, I have been in calls with people who are receiving the message live on the radio on the buzzer frequency e.g. me. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at this a different way

To all those who commented above, look at this a different way. No, the article shouldn't be renamed just because the call sign changed, since the title UVB-76 is still descriptive of the signal for what it has been for almost all of its history. Yes, a section should be made in this article that discusses the call sign change, but the entire article should not be moved because of that. The current title is the most descriptive and well-known title and, per WP:COMMONNAME, should be kept the way it is. Silverseren^C 09:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I added it moments ago. Now it was deleted. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There still needs to be reliable sources regarding the name change. Adambro (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

All reports of radio amateurs, recordings and its transcripts... why that's NOT reliable? 89.76.176.180 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How can a recording or transcript on some random personal website be considered a reliable source? Couldn't anyone say anything is a recording of UVB-76? Adambro (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, no. They can't. We listen every day on the frequency. The buzzer stops, and voice messages occur. Not faked. We have triangulations going on, frequency analysis, you name it. PresentedIn4D (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, you're welcome now to listen to stream on http://uvb-76.net, wait for message and confirm it yourself. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How can I be sure that anything I listen to on uvb-76.net is actually UVB-76? Adambro (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Other receivers tuned to that frequency reveal identical results. PresentedIn4D (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am listening to it from receiver also. Everything is identical. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The next problem then is how do we know the transmissions are UVB-76? I heard something on X frequency isn't a reliable source. Adambro (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Transmission was broadcasted few minutes ago, on 14:55 UTC. Recording: http://soundcloud.com/danix111/uvb-76-2010-12-26-14-55-utc 89.76.176.180 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We know the transmissions are from (what was) UVB-76 due to buzzer. The buzzer has always been on 4625 khz. Always. And it still is, aside from the occasional outage. Whenever we have a voice transmission, the buzzer stops. It is turned off, then a voice starts. Repetition. PresentedIn4D (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No more arguments? 89.76.176.180 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the other users, including myself, are just annoyed that you don't seem to be getting it at all. I'm fairly tempted to just go with the argument of "Thats how things work here". The words of people on a personal forum, regardless of the fact that all of you personally listen to it, does not have reliability on Wikipedia. As i've said before, we cannot just take your word for it. Now, if one of you got such information published somewhere, that would be different, because it would be independently corroborated by a known reliable source. Silverseren^C 19:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I can say that you just deny your own rules. This page is outdated for over 5 years, you have somewhere what's going on station. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How does publishing make it more legitimate? PresentedIn4D (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What is missing - continuation: Callsign changes, tone changes, voice transmissions, transmitter location, any oddities, events noted, presumed purpose, stoppages, useful sound samples, so you have a lot to fill, especially with events and messages, and try to find other reliable sources http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/uvb-76.html. But because author didn't wanted creating other domain on it. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability say everything that needs to be said here. Can you and PresentedIn4D confirm that you've read both of those pages? Adambro (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

From Verifiability:

"To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[1]" As far as I know, this is not likely to be challenged. I sure hope I'm reading this right. Take it this way as well. How do we know, without triangulation (original research) that that is the location? Many of these so called "reliable sources" do nothing but restate what we have already discovered. Some even just use this very page for information. I hope you understand the point that I am trying to make. Everything comes from original research. We are having an article published in Wired in the coming months (hopefully, if the writer is legit) about the station. I dont understand what could be wrong about the lists of voice messages. How are audio recordings from a known source not reliable? How is having multiple source confirmations not reliable? PresentedIn4D (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The point you make about some sources using this very page for information is a very important one. This is one of the reasons why reliable sources are important but also why it is very important that Wikipedia articles only contain verifiable material. Because Wikipedia is such a well known website, often anything said on Wikipedia is taken as fact and so then other sources reproduce the content and so we could end up in a downward spiral of the quality of the information we present on a subject as incorrect or dubious info gradually gets considered to be accurate as it is reproduced elsewhere. Less reliable sources may just copy content from Wikipedia and then that provides a source for the sourced material on Wikipedia.

I remain sceptical as to whether a rigorous analysis of the sources used here would actually provide enough basis for an article about this topic. Unfortunately this is a technical subject and potentially a clandestine operation and that makes finding reliable sources difficult. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't permit a relaxation in terms of the requirements for verifiability and use of reliable sources so I think things are very difficult here.

Regarding Wired (e.g. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/25/russian-numbers-station-broadcast-changes), I do wonder whether their article about this subject would fall into the category of reproducing content from Wikipedia. I wonder, for example, where they got the information from that the origin of the transmissions is Povarovo, Russia? Without a better source for this I do think we should consider removing the location info. On the basis of their previous article, I would be a little unsure as to whether Wired would be a good source.

As for "this is not likely to be challenged", or rather "any material challenged or likely to be challenged", what are all the discussions that have gone on on this page about sources and the removal of content from the page if it isn't the challenging of some of the content that has been added? You don't need a reliable source to say London is a city in the United Kingdom, because that is unlikely to be challenged, but when we have apparent messages from some radio transmitter then you do need a reliable source. Adambro (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So you just wan't to say, that only big commercial websites, which copies original research to more people are reliable? Triangulation did by radio amateurs in 1997 which pointed location as Povarovo was original research. That page I am still mentioning above was based on reliable sources. I wan't to criticize you here so much, but no, because that Wiki consider as "personal attacks". 89.76.176.180 (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to criticise what I have said, only criticising me personally for saying something would be a problem. Clearly as I've said regarding Wired, being a "big commercial website" doesn't mean a particularly story is automatically reliable. As WP:RS says, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." As I've suggested, I think the Wired story might not be a reliable source for some info, such as the location, which I suspect was taken from Wikipedia's article. Do we have a reliable source which says the location of the transmitter was found by triangulation in 1997? Adambro (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Now this page is one huge lie about the station. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)