![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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 unconfirmed 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
{{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)
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)
I removed the following text from the article:
which came with this cite:
{{
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)
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)
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)
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?
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
http://www.justin.tv/rampageturke/b/268931775 around 32 minutes in. 221.146.70.242 ( talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is a heavily Jewish accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.183.235 ( talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
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!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.96.61 ( talk) 08:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See these references:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Article also available on the web:
Reference to the 4625 kHz signal on page 2.
Sv1xv ( talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 14:43:00 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)
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)
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)
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. Silver seren C 09:29, 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)
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)
"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)
Now this page is one huge lie about the station. 89.76.176.180 ( talk) 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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 unconfirmed 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
{{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)
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)
I removed the following text from the article:
which came with this cite:
{{
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)
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)
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)
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?
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
http://www.justin.tv/rampageturke/b/268931775 around 32 minutes in. 221.146.70.242 ( talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is a heavily Jewish accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.183.235 ( talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
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!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.96.61 ( talk) 08:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See these references:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Article also available on the web:
Reference to the 4625 kHz signal on page 2.
Sv1xv ( talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 14:43:00 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)
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)
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)
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. Silver seren C 09:29, 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)
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)
"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)
Now this page is one huge lie about the station. 89.76.176.180 ( talk) 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)