Talk:UVB-76

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)

USB or AM?

Good article. However in my experience of monitoring UVB-76 for several years it always uses full carrier dual side band ( Amplitude modulation) for broadcasting not upper side band (USB).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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: [2] 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)

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)[3][4][5][6]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WHERE DID ALL OF THE ACTIVITY INFORMATION GO?

WHAT THE FUCK

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)

Exactly, they are a bunch of automatons with no interest or concern for preservation of important information. They should be banned from editing if they wont take the time to understand the article before they butcher it.

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)