Jump to content

Talk:UVB-76/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2

Lock Request

Can I request that the article be reverted to what it was on November and then locked until the Wikipedia staff can make a fair investigation? Seems fair enough to me!

Voyager78906 (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should the article be reverted to as it was in November and what needs to be investigated? Adambro (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be under "attack" by some editors who are not playing to the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. Reliable sources are only needed where the article is likely to be challenged. Now we have a number of sources such as a well known and respected listening group (Enigma 2000) and other people who listen in and record each message as we hear them - I am such a person. From what I have seen and been told, some editors here are saying that the messages are not confirmed, even though there are hundreds of people listening and recording. I seems to me that the only fair solution is to revert back to how the page was in November and then to lock it out pending an investigation by wiki staff as to the sources used. As I say, the wikipedia rules state that reliable content must be present when the content is likely to be challenged. This just seems to be the most fair option at the moment.

Voyager78906 (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "wiki staff"? There is the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation but they won't get involved in issues such as this.
As for "Reliable sources are only needed where the article is likely to be challenged", Wikipedia:Verifiability says reliable sources are needed for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". It is too late now, after material has been removed and myself and others have suggested there should be proper sources for content to say it doesn't need a reliable source on the basis of whether content is likely to be challenged. It already has been challenged.
As is explained at WP:BURDEN, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is now for anyone who wants to add the disputed content to find the reliable sources to support it. If that isn't possible then it shouldn't be added to the article.
On the issue of reverting the article to the version as of sometime in November and then protecting it, I fully support efforts to improve the article in keeping with our guidelines and policies but I struggle to see how that would help achieve that. Adambro (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Malfuctions conversations

In the Malfunctions section there are two sentences quoted as overheard conversations. Two sources are cited for these, but the English translations in both sources is noticably different than the English versions in the article. I don't read Russian so I can't comment on the accuracy of any translation, but I noticed this. --24.168.240.243 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Buzzer changes

On January 11, 2011 buzzer changed its gap length to 1.85 s, now it's 20 times per minute. Many others can confirm same. Sample: http://danix111.cba.pl/ns/audio/buzzer-2011.mp3 89.76.176.180 (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Has this been reported by any reliable sources? Adambro (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Now write me addresses of websites about UVB-76 that are reliable. You can confirm it yourself - on streams, radios, globaltuners etc. The best reliable source is original research and that's fact. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't need to give you website addresses. The unfortunate fact however is that there aren't many websites about UVB-76 that can be considered reliable sources. That isn't to say that they are wrong but there is a difference between a website being reliable and it meeting the Wikipedia criteria regarding what is a reliable source. I think I've highlighted the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines enough times now that you should be able to judge a source against the criteria set out. I have probably mentioned the Wikipedia:No original research policy previously which explains that "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". Adambro (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1. There aren't any "experts" of UVB-76, only radio amateurs are researching. 2. All is coming from original research, but you don't care. 3. Hundreds of reports of thousands of listeners about same thing == reliable. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This article should be quickly removed, as do not reflect current state of MDZhB (former UVB-76, but article don't mention that, UVB-76 was heard last time on September 10, 2010, that was long time ago!). Nothing about gap and tone changes, messages, events noted, sound samples. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that things that have happened in the past are no long important, which is patently not true. The extended information is not in the article, as has been stated before on this talk page, because the information has not been covered in reliable sources. SilverserenC 18:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Who else research than radio amateurs? No one. There aren't "reliable sources" that are completely about MDZhB. This article should be removed. 89.76.176.180 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
True, there are no reliable sources that discuss UVB-76 in depth. However, there are a number of reliable sources that discuss UVB-76 in some detail. And those allow this article to be, at least generally, complete and informational. If someone wants to know what the buzzer is, they would find out by coming here. Then they can go to the radio amateurs' sites to find out more details. SilverserenC 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

May the 20th

Around 16:20 (gmt) shuffling noises were hear. At 18:00 the shuffling noises had become more frequent, then the buzzer changed tone and volume and a sound like a train in the back ground was hear. After which the beeping became erratic some times with "clacking" noises in between buzzes. The buzzes would either become faster, stop for to long or buzzer closer together. Then at around 18:40 (GMt) a sound like a phone malfunctioning was apparent and louder. The live feed became erratic also and the colour spectrum start. Random lines of orange had been seen since 16:00 but at around 18:00 other lines and columns appeared. After this the normal line and blocks of 4620 became orange and green. Some people heard gunshots others trains then an ambulance was hear. After this a high-pitched ringing was also in the background. 82.25.138.216 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this about? Color spectrum?? It's an audio-only transmission, not a TV station. -- Chronulator (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Wired article

There's a really good article from Wired magazine on UVB-76:

Peter Savodnik (September 27, 2011). "Inside the Russian Short Wave Radio Enigma". Wired. Retrieved 2011-10-05.

-- Chronulator (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy !@#$

http://priyom.org/media/53154/s30-3756usb-2011-10-26t2226z-msg.ogg This is new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.5.3 (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone deleted the post above but I have restored it. There is no reason for deleting good faith posts made on talk pages, even if the post itself leaves as much to be desired as this one does. To the poster above: what you have added is interesting, but completely useless unless you can tell us more about the recording, e.g. where you got it from, is it definitely from UVB-76, etc. Once you have come up with this information (or someone else has), it can by all means be added to the article. But first we need some context. --Viennese Waltz 10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Now, how is this provable? Do we provide a screenshot of a waterfall or something?PresentedIn4D (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You have to provide a reference from a reliable source stating that this transmission came from UVB-26. Wikipedia is a collection of previously published information, not a place to add new information. --Viennese Waltz 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
the link is dead anyway. but if you compare the german article to this one, i think that this one is lacking. 77.176.253.73 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

The co-ordinates at the top of the article go to the old pre-move location, not the new one. Secretlondon (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pip

The buzzer is believed to be linked to the pip (S30) and the squeaky wheel (S32). http://www.priyom.org/media/56944/the_pip_dossier.pdf says that the pip is from 47°17'58”N 39°40'26”E and has a receiver site at 47°19'37”N 39°45'12”E. Secretlondon (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2012 (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).

Morse Code/General Transcripts

If anyone could create a transcript of the newest recordings (August/September of 2012) that would be great, seeing as I am proficient in neither Morse code nor Russian. Also, a translation of the Morse code would be most welcome. Guyag (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't host this before it's been written about by other people such as Priyom, or whoever. Secretlondon (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 activity deleted.

OK, what the heck. Why is 2012 activity deleted. Can someone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.247.231 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the 2012 activity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.248.165.4 (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it because:
  • It is not sourced, or badly sourced to sources that are not independent reliable sources.
  • It is badly formatted and reads more like a logbook.
  • It is mostly trivia information that is either not notable or is a case of original research and does not belong in an encyclopedia article.
Some of the information is downright misleading, and gives the impression that the buzzer is doing very strange things while in reality it is not. Something like "volume fluctuating" is completely uninteresting and everyone who listens to shortwave knows this; signal strength always varies depending on propagation conditions. The same applies if the signal gradually fades out only to reappear weakly; this is completely normal for distant shortwave reception via skywave. When the information about a fax machine sound was added I actually listened to the buzzer myself, and noticed that it was an FSK signal (which is extremely common on shortwave), and that could easily been another station broadcasting in a nearby frequency and interfering with the buzzer, rather than the buzzer itself. And those are only some of the problems with the section. CodeCat (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some source audio for some Morse code that I recorded yesterday, as well, there IS a documented voice transmission that happened days ago, so I propose re-instating the 2012 activity section, because the station is definitely active and has shown activity in 2012. I can post the source audio as I find it. InVultusSolis (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that the buzzer is still active. What I am objecting to is the way in which information is being presented here. A sound recording is not a reliable source as it is open to all kinds of interpretation, which would be original research. CodeCat (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It needs to have been written about by other people. Once the repeater, or priyom, or Enigma2000 or whoever mention any of this stuff then it's okay, sourced to them. Currently it's utterly unverifiable and none of those sites have been raising this stuff - and they would if all these anomalies were actually happening. Secretlondon (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Just edit it so that it dosen't look like a logbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.219.3 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I don't disagree with CodeCat. However, I have personally listened a few nights at interesting chatter in Russian language broadcast when the buzzer stops, typically at night here in the USA. I am perplexed a bit why other websites are not documenting this as it sounds exactly the same as previous recordings in 2010 and onward.Bduxbury (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Bduxbury

I have now submitted the issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#UVB-76. CodeCat (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Vandalism

Can we get an admin to stop this garbage vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.89.48 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

On December 17, 2012, UVB-76 went silent. Please mention that. For what I know, this is a current event, so you may want to check up on this in the near future. AlexKmml (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The burden is on you to provide such sources, not for others to go looking for them. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to The Buzzer

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. CodeCat (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


UVB-76 → The Buzzer – The callsign of this station is not confirmed, and it might not even be a callsign. On the other hand, the nickname "The Buzzer" is widely known and used. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC) CodeCat (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. It's widely known as UVB-76.Secretlondon (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
True, but it's not even sure if that is an official name or not, and it seems to be an older name even if it is. On the other hand, the station has always been called the Buzzer, and because it's a nickname, there is no problem. We also name other mystery stations by their nicknames, like The Pip, Lincolnshire Poacher and so on. CodeCat (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm retracting this nomination per WP:SNOW. CodeCat (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Purpose of buzzer is officially known

All mentions of unknown purpose, etc. should be edited to mention it as a Russian army station. Operators of a sister station have used it to broadcast cleartext army order (see Pip's Talk page) --TotoCZ 03:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talk • contribs)

Speculation in text

"It is also speculated that " ... " cheap, reliable, secure communication via the Internet". This doesn't belong in the article, as it's a combination of speculation and fiction on part of the paragraph author. E.g.: Internet communication is not ubiquitous, does not reach everywhere, and is neither cheap, reliable, or secure. -- Anonymous, 2015-03-20 09:47 UTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.231.96.129 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I came here for my regular (~yearly) check and noticed that mentions of the Dead Hand have disappeared, but otherwise nothing really concrete about the purpose of the station took their place. On the other hand, the link mentioned below seems to offer quite reasonable and organized information. It's also richer than the current Wikipedia version and offers plausible explanations about why it's not part of the Dead Hand, so I'm not sure exactly why "it should be removed because we have a good article". (Let's keep it in place.) 110.76.103.181 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Should remove "History and Info on The Buzzer" and link to strange 'smegma' site http://www.numbers-stations.com/the-buzzer Reason: we have good article in this amazing site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVB-76 Here http://www.numbers-stations.com/the-buzzer same info as in wiki. Orlando Avare (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UVB-76. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

'Station down'

As this has seemingly only happened today, the significance is unknown - a longer period of absence would be required for comment. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article seems to attract a lot of WP:NOTNEWS-like content, with people reporting on events as soon as they happen even if they are completely insignificant. It should probably be removed. CodeCat (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
'Category of information which might be of significance, and which should actually be noted on the talk page to be looked into subsequently.' (As it is sometimes useful to have such things flagged.) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Hmmm. Yes well traffic analysis suggests it is used for military. It sent coded messages at the time of the crimea annexation, and also when putin declared WW 3 was imminent. The coded message at this later time was probably "Ignore putin, he's a nutter !". 123.243.91.29 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Which is very, very interesting as it coincided with a certain election campaign in a different country, following accusation that this and that candidate will "certainly" bring on said WW3. It almost look like as if the said tranmissions were some election campaign synchro pulses (and guidance, advice), has anyone noticed? (for deep mole operators) Connect the dots between campaign statements, actions and these transmissions. Simple.

Can anyone put the dates from these transmissions on the timeline of the election? Seems most interesting, the dates when it was "written" and transmitted... http://priyom.org/number-stations/digital/f06/45075 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.21.239 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Data format encoding.

Here I talk about "bits", but I mean individual frequency bands (nibbles, lol) on the left and right of the center frequency.

The bandwidth around which the transmission is based could be marked down (19 bits on the USB) and may I suggest alternative uses? Since this station is sweep-modulated, and it uses slightly different encoding for each message, it can be used as a type of a) radar signal, or at least b) radar-assist signal. The first has been confirmed by the link to the ionosphere signal propagation study. That also means that space-borne threats are detectable with this method with powerful antennas. The method is similar/identical as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga-3

The modulation pause is fixed, so it is used as a reset signal. Talking about this: https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/5/54/UVB-76-detail.png The USB and LSB are NOT mirroring each other, so a mathematician would first need to confirm that the LSB doesn't have any significance. There is a mathematical relationship and as we see the intensity of the USB bits changing randomly, but the LSB does not mirror it!!! It is possible that the LSB band is used as a secondary data carrier, or is just an artifact of the strong bit selection in the USB, but as I said, we need math to prove or disprove that. Out of my ability or competence.

The first USB bit isn't random, it is strong/weak alternation only.

The data could be encoding the length of the pulse, which would allow you to use the signal as radar, if the signal and timing had a good timing source (atomic clock, for example.) But still, rather than an OTH radar, it would be an "overrhear radar" for passing satellites, up to 23.5 Earth diameters distance. Which seems plausible, or at least semi-semi plausible. It the end, you could be radaring the ionosphere, but that is useful for the accuracy correction of GPS signals.

So, the USB and LSB could be encoding different message stream, or be somehow complimentary. The modulation length could be PWM signal giving the message as well. Or encoding time, date, anything. Or defcon status. Encoding in the USB starting with bit 20 is weaker, but math needs to confirm if it carries independent data or not.

Another data: bit -6 has constant very narrow signal. It has no purpose, unless you want to align the receiver to separately receive and decode the 6 narrow bands from bits -2.2 to +2.2, these seem to be very, very intentionally selected to avoid coinciding with the bit locations. The constant signal at bit -6 can also be used to fine-tune the receiver in the era before our current digital receivers, so that it sits exactly right. These can be just the transmission hardware artifacts, and telling us how the germanium transistors feel, but you never know.

Most interesting part of this transmission is in how many ways it carries meaningful data. Second, it has some kind of significance, since we can reasonably believe that countless receivers are tuned to it constantly and processing the time and frequency domain modulation it sends. Also, the slight upsweep can be processed for Doppler-generated information.

Since turbo codes were not invented back in the days this station started, it's not likely this transmission was designed around full matrix soft-bit modulation (data bit ranging from 0 to 1), and the keying length modulation must be resistant enough for even very, very crudely made electro-mechanical receiving equipment. That could also explain the upsweep. Seriously, what kind of arm-lever-drum device generates upsweep? Or is it just to compensate the self-resonanve of a leaf spring as it gets bend during the duration of its movement? This is the puzzling part, in the receiver this upsweep makes perfect sense without any ultra-complicated design. First use would be moving objects (aircraft), which could compensate the relatively static Doppler shift, but I'm unsure if this makes any sense.

From a research standpoint, this makes so much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.21.239 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: the length of the pulse + pause make it useful not only for ionospheric propagation observations, but also for EME (earth-moon-earth) reflection where you could see how the bounced signal off the moon travelled. Knowing and understanding how signals from your command base propagate trough ionosphere is of critical importance, and would be useful as a simple tool for "space weather" observation. If this station wasn't ever used for any other purpose, being used as a pre-coded beacon to see how the ionospheric layers behave and if there are any significant changes has its real value. As we do not know the receiving stations of their equipment, we can't confirm with final validity, but studying the paper on ionosphere which used this transmitter as the source would tell more hints about its purpose. For any researchers: use that as the starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.21.239 (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot include such original research (WP:OR). The article can only report on what reliable, ideally secondary, sources (WP:RS) say. PaleoNeonate (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Experienced opinion:beacons

I spent years listening to HF radio when it was still a major carrier for a lot of 'utility' communications, both voice and data modes, narrow and wideband. HF propagation is a very iffy thing, which is why many so-called 'shortwave broadcast stations' operate on multiple frequencies.

If you want to know whether propagation is 'open' on a particular band of frequencies, you can turn to the frequencies of known 'propagation beacons'. There were, and still are, hundreds of them... legaland illegal. If you are at point A, and can hear the beacon at point B, the circuit is 'open' and you are likely to be able to communicate, in that direction at least, on that frequency. They are still commonly used by radio amateurs.

Consider the cost of keeping 10kW stations operating 24/7 for decades. You might want to use them occasionally for other purposes, but the major benefit would be in knowing which HF frequencies are available for 2-way communications ... always. IMO they are primarily beacons. Twang (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Official name

I tagged the official name as needing a cite [1]. I originally wondered if it was vandalism but the editor User:DaniWert23 looks to be sincere. However unless a citation is forthcoming and the fact one was asked for a long time ago suggests it won't be, it should IMO be removed because as I've said, our article seems to imply basically nothing is known officially about it and all the info comes from listening to it (and analysing the transmission) and possibly one log book, I don't see how it has a known official name (as distinct from hypothesised call signs from listening to the transmissions. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian-language wiki has lots more detail

Using Google Translate I was able to read the Russian version of this page, it doesn't seem to be such a mysterious thing, the russian-language wikipedians have documented it. Maybe a kind bilingual soul could take some of that info and bring it to the English version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.89.74 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia page was nominated for deletion in April 2020 due to OR: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/2_%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F_2020#%D0%A3%D0%92%D0%91-76. Fences&Windows 15:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Language in...Robloxian?

I just wanted to point this out - as of the time of reading, it says here that UVB-76 is in 'Robloxian'. Should we put N/A or something in its place? Or remove the row entirely? Uaiazr Jxhiosh (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Strongly suspect this is a "joke edit" so I have reverted these edits, not sure if Robloxian is a recognised language (Roblox is a video game), but as it does not have a source it's best removed until a relaiable source can confirm. Philedmondsuk (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I understand, Robloxian is the language of the Roblox players, right? I listened UVB-76 broadcasts and I can say (as a russian native speaker!) that it is broadcast in russian. UVB-76 uses a spelling alphabet (see also: Russian spelling alphabet). You can see this in the image below. It's just that instead of letters of which the words are composed, they pronounce russian names that begin with these letters. For example, МДЖБ (MDJB) will sound like Михаил, Дмитрий, Женя, Борис (Mikhail, Dmitry, Zhenya, Boris). Just listen to this broadcast recording.. Uaiazr Jxhiosh, Philedmondsuk. P.S. sorry for my English. Account Ivan (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

When to add new highlights

I imagine most people wouldn't wanna clutter the page with moments when this station started speaking, so when should it be important? Should we have a separate page for these sorts of things? Rtucker913 (What do you want?) 16:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We should only be reporting on what others have published in reliable sources. We do not need a list of everything ever transmitted by this station. And there should not be original research, where our writers are reporting on what they discovered themselves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

UVB-76 questionable items

The first air date of "1973" and the references used make an unsubstantiated claim of when it was first heard i.e. 1973, there is no proof of this and none is given by the "source"; The claim is baseless in fact, because no direct evidence of this is provided to the reader.

The first listed external YouTube video is a fake, unless proven if in fact it was from 2 August 1976 as claimed. The YouTube poster has never replied back to any "its a fake" comments nor does this YouTube poster have any other videos to back up this claim. 50.38.107.53 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You can mark the 1973 claims with a {{dubious}} template. I would question whether a pip in the same frequency is really the same station as the buzzer, but there may be a justification. It is sourced to N&O 75th Spooks and that says since at least 1973, so might be before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

N&O #75 dates from July 2004, who is making this claim of "round since at least 1973"?

50.38.107.53 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

UVB-76 pre-foghorn/buzzer days

Earlier radio related publications make reference to a time pip station given(as yet unknown)the call sign VEB2. The following time line gives a summary of what was written about it and the later foghorn/buzzer.

4625kHz Confidential Frequency List 1st Edition (1967) also published in S9 CB magazine June 1967 p.67/68 (no listing)

4625kHz Confidential Frequency List 2nd Edition (1972) (no listing)

4625kHz Confidential Frequency List 3rd Edition (1976) (no listing)

4625kHz Confidential Frequency List 4th Edition (1979) (no listing)

4625 kHz AM January, 1982, recording by Ary Boender*(pips)*The Buzzer Primer March 25, 2012

4625kHz VEB2 Confidential Frequency List, 5th Edition p. 28 (1982)

MAY/JUNE, 1983 MONITORING TIMES p.1 /(PRESSTIME, NEWSBREAK) A highly -placed intelligence official has notified Monitoring Times that one of the frequency - reported phonetics broadcasts "kilo papa alpha two") originates from the Yugoslavian embassy in Ottawa, Canada. Our frequency data base confirms that some of the reported frequencies do, indeed belong to that diplomatic service. We appreciate hearing from individuals who have authoritative information about these mysterious "Spy numbers" stations.

Communications Confidential July 1983 POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS p. 67 HARRY HELMS /For example, have you heard time signal station VEB2 on 4625 kHz? The latest (5th) Confidential Frequency List (published by Gilfer Shortwave, Box 239, Park Ridge, NJ 07656) lists (p.28) it as operating from an unknown location, but possibly in Canada. Keep an ear on 4625 kHz and see if you can hear it!

4625: VEB2 time signal station, unknown location (but possibly Canada), 0112 with time signal pulses every two seconds. (George Osier, (N2JNZ) NY) Anyone have a clue as to where this one is located? p. 50 POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS November 1983 (Editor) Loggings

Now About Those Mysterious Transmissions? TOM KNEITEL, K2AES, EDITOR p.24 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / March 1984 an article on numbers stations. (Table 2 has no VEB2 listing. But KPA2 & MIW2 are listed.)

4625: VEB2 with time pulses every two seconds in SSB, very weak. (George Osier, NY) This station is supposedly located in Canada, but does anyone have any idea as to the actual location or purpose? (Editor) p.58 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / April 1984 Loggings

4625: VEB2, location unknown (but reported to be Canada), time pulses every two seconds 0340. (George Osier, NY) Are George and I the only people hearing this? (Editor) p.62 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / May 1984 Loggings

Monitoring Mossad: The Israeli Intelligence Service p. 36 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / July 1984 Table of frequencies 4625 VEB/ VIB (under schedule details): moved to 4670

4625kHz : VEB2 time signals in USB at 0030. One pulse every two seconds. (George Osier, NY) p.62 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / Nov 1984 Loggings

4625 VEB2 Confidential Frequency List, 6th Edition (1984) p. 18 ---- 50.38.107.53 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.107.53 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

4625: VEB2, most likely in Canada but exact location not known, with time pulses at 2358. (George Osier, Norfolk, NY) p66 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / June 1985 Loggings

4625.0 A (mode AM?) 0615 12/21/85 VEB2 TIME SIGS TENTATIVE ID RR-MS (RAYMOND ROCKER MS) P.61 SPEEDX FEBRUARY 1986 Loggings

4625 VEB2 Confidential Frequency List 6th Edition Revised p.18 (1986)

4625: An AM carrier w/beeping every 2.25 seconds, at 0550 (Fernandez, MA). p.66 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / September 1987 Loggings

Communications Confidential George Osier, NY reports he continues to hear Time Station VEB2 but still has been unable to come up with an ID. Sorry George, I am in the dark also. None of my references contain any information relating to this station. The callsign allocation is Canada so I wonder if this is a time service run by the Canadian Military? George stated the frequency was 4625 kHz. P. 64 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / March 1988 (DON SCHIMMEL)

Great Shortwave Riddles Reporters to "Communications Confidential" have long reported a similar station on 4625 kHz, which transmits a pulse every two seconds. This station was identified as VEB2 in Gilfer's Confidential Frequency List (6th), but I've been unable to get a reply out of Canada's Department of Communications concerning whether this station is indeed in Canada or its purpose. Maybe some POP'-COMM readers who are Canadian taxpayers could have better luck! p.34 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / December 1988 (HARRY HELMS)

4625 VEB2 Ferrell's Confidential Frequency List 7th Edition p.43 (1988)

4625 kHz January 15, 1989 2025z, recording by Ary Boender* (pips)*The Buzzer Primer March 25, 2012

Communications Confidential Paul Scalzo, Canada, wrote to the Department of Communications twice requesting information regarding station VEB2. "The first reply was very short and to the point, ‘The frequency and callsign do not exist in the D.O.C. computer.’ In my second letter I asked if a monitoring station could establish at least what direction the signal was coming from. I am still waiting for the reply, that letter was dated 18 December 1988." Paul, if you do happen to hear from the DOC, please let us know the details. pp. 62-63 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / Nov 1989 (DON SCHIMMEL)

4625 VEB2 Ferrell's Confidential Frequency List 7th Revised Edition p.43 (1990)

4625: Pulse every 3 sec. No ID on the hour just an alternating tone on the 59th min. VEB2 rptd here at 0201. USB. (Scalzo, PQ, Canada) March 1990 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / p71 Loggings

4625: Time Stn VEB2 (unlocated) in AM at 0236 w/ pips every 3 1/2 secs. (Fernandez, MA)p.69 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / June 1990 Loggings

4625: Time station VEB2 (u/i Canadian location?) with pips every 3.5 secs. Used to be every 2.5 secs. Hrd at 0139. (Fernandez, MA) p.66 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / October 1990 Loggings

4625 VEB#/VIB# Utility World Table 2 November 1990 p. 29 MONITORING TIMES

4625.0 VEB- Israeli Mossad station with same "pips" as usual but now every 3- 1/2 seconds (usually2-1/2 seconds) at 0139. (Fernandez, MA) This is definitely not a time station, it's an Israeli Mossad. -- The Chief*. (Ed.*Grove) p.30 November 1990 Loggings/ MONITORING TIMES

Underground Frequency Guide / Harry Helms; DX/SWL Press, 1990 p.59 4625 “Pulse" every three seconds, alternating tone on the hour 0200 “Pulse” every second 0055

4625.0 VEB2-Israeli Mossad with buzzing notes at 0628. (Bill Fernandez, MA) This is still a Mossad station-chief.* (Ed.*Grove) p.32 April 1991 Utility World Loggings MONITORING TIMES

4625 kHz June 20, 1991 2059z, recording by Ary Boender* (buzzing)*The Buzzer Primer March 25, 2012

4625: The single 'pip' hrd here 25 hrs a day has changed. It now sounds like a short 'buzzer' and at 59 mins past hour buzz is continuous (sounds like a fly buzz- ing). Can some times be hrd on twice this freq-9250 kHz. (Mason, England) p. 68 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / June 1991

4625kHz : Buzzer here now has interval of 1.8 secs instead of former rate of 2.8 secs. Has been reported as Canadian Time Stn VEB2. (Mason, England) p.73 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / August 1991 Loggings

4625kHz: u/i Time Signal Station in CW at 2159. (Boender, Netherlands) This poss VEB2 which is listed as poss located in Canada*. (Ed.*) p.62 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / Dec 1991 Loggings

4625kHz VEB2 Ferrell's Confidential Frequency List 8th Edition (1992) p. 405

Speedx Utility World March 1992 pp39-40 Fog Horn Update: 4625.0(kHz) Foghorn carrier center “No ID has ever been reported”

Strange Signals Al Underwood of Silver Springs, New York, reports numerous logs of the "foghorn" on 4625 kHz. But, at 0230he also heard it loud and clear on a third harmonic frequency of 13875kHz! Many have assumed that the foghorn's "braaappp" noise is an over the horizon radar system, but Al wonders why they would generate strong harmonics like this. p. 55 Sept 1992/ MONITORING TIMES

4625.0kHz Foghorn signal heard at 0200(Al Underwood –Silver Springs, NY) p. 34 November 1992 MONITORING TIMES Loggings

4625kHz : Buzzer in AM at 0159 w/one continuous two tone buzz. Then stopped and went back to regular buzz at top of hour. (Sevart, England) p.45 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / Dec 1992 Loggings

E.n.i.g.m.a. issue #4; (undated late 1993?)p. 12; Ken in Doncaster letter to newsletter mentions noise on 4625 “sounds like a foghorn or buzzer”

4625kHz VEB2 Ferrell's Confidential Frequency List 9th Edition (1994) no longer listed

Underground Frequency Guide /Donald Schimmel; HighText Publications, 1994 p.120 4625 “Buzzer” in AM at 0159 with one continuous two-tone buzz. Stopped and went back to regular buzz at top of hour.

E.n.i.g.m.a. issue #5; (undated Jan 1994?) p. 5; signal on for 10 years

E.n.i.g.m.a. issue #7; (Jan 1995) p. 15; “M18” time signal on 4625 is back

4625kHz : In background of buzzer that continually operates in this freq, CW stn sending 1254 from 2130-0030. Two weeks later was sending 1434. (SM) p.69 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / Feb 1995 Loggings

E.n.i.g.m.a. issue #11; (undated 1996?)p. 47; “my feeling (unsigned author) signal on after 1986 but before 1989"

E.n.i.g.m.a. issue #16; (Jan 1999);p.33 (someone named) Costas (says it was) operating as a pip on 29Feb 1988 on 4625 (but also claims) it to be active back in 1981.

4625: Buzzer, RUS at 0020 buzzing the night away. (AB) p.69 / POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS / May 1999 Loggings

50.38.107.53 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well 50' you have made an impressive list of references. Do you have a database of open literature references to all frequency loggings, or are you just focussing on the buzzer? Anyway you have provided evidence for 1982 for the PIP existing, but the claim differs as to what that is, Canadian or Yugoslavian or Mossad. And that is not the same as a Russian source. So this article probably should not claim the pip and the UVB-76 are the same station. But it does not disprove 1973 for the start of the pip. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Russian source? http://www.radioscanner.ru? Not in English, if an author uses this reference they should kindly translate the text for the reader.

but the claim differs? That's the point the various magazine editors (Grove, Kneitel, Helms & Schimmel) were trying to track down what and where VEB2 on 4625kHz was, based on readers input.

The author "Tucana" in The Buzzer Primer cited above writes "first activity range from 1976 to 1982"; "Internet is full of Buzzer folklore"; "Reports of the station's emergence vary from 1976 to 1982"; "an enormous amount of false information about the Buzzer online"; so even this "Primer" doesn't go along with the one sourced 1973 claim.

The above time line listing was only to suggest that nothing existed in the radio listener literature before 1982 and that perhaps the unknown VEB2 pip may have played a part.

Since UVB-76 is European in origin & location it's best that Europeans sort out the real early history, but do so without any "enormous amount of false information" and "Buzzer folklore" if you please.

50.38.98.229 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Odd stuff that there was a buzzer in 1977

I am very confused because I watched a Youtube video of a recording of The Buzzer that someone claimed it was from 1977 that actually featured the buzzing sound. It's confusing because the article says "Since the start of broadcasting sometime in the 1970s, the buzzer broadcast as a repeating two-second pip, changing to a buzzer in the late 1980s/early 1990s." I find that video speculative. I believe that the user took a recording of The Buzzer after 1977, then put the recording on the video with an image with the "1977" date.

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L4YAVboc5U

If you believe or do not believe that the video is fake, please do not hesitate to reply to me. Thanks! 66.190.244.82 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't normally count YouTube videos as reliable. We don't know the uploader, or the recorder. You are likely correct about its inauthenticity. Don't use it as a reference for this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

UVB-76 as the callsign of the recipient

I recently stumbled across this website. I have no idea how reliable of a source it is, but I found it interesting how the format of pre-2011 UVB-76 voice transmissions seems to match the format of a "Монолит" or Monolith priority military transmission. A callsign, followed by a string of five numbers, then a code-word, a string of eight numbers and finally the code-word and the eight numbers again, like here:

>"Ya UVB-76, Ya UVB-76. 180 08 BROMAL 74 27 99 14. Boris, Roman, Olga, Mikhail, Anna, Larisa. 7 4 2 7 9 9 1 4"

However, the website claims that the callsign, in this case UVB-76, is actually the callsign of the recipient and not the transmitting station. So what if the same thing is the case with the Buzzer? Maybe a callsign change means a change in the message's intended recipient. NixonFan1962 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I rather would call this source unreliable, this source consists of little or no information about whether or not the callsign is for the recipient. You may want to add a stronger secondary source for this, otherwise, it's WP:OR. 66.190.244.82 (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

use of dubious footnote 13

The text "changing to a buzzer in the late 1980s/early 1990s.[13]" links to a video which is dubious and a fake. 50.38.100.23 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We have been discussing this above in Talk:UVB-76/Archive 2#UVB-76 pre-foghorn/buzzer days including other more reliable records or lack thereof. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Voice messages" section

I usually edit the German Wikipedia and English is not my native tongue, so excuse any mistakes.

I've been wondering about the seemingly random list of voice messages being displayed here. First of all, this list is obviously lacks completion. If it is supposed to be a complete list of messages, then I would consider it a large data project that does not really fit onto Wikipedia, as far as I would say. However, if it is supposed to represent a carefully chosen set of examples, then I do not get why there are so many of them.

In my opinion, The current section of voice messages should be replaced entirely by a careful selection of "important" messages, and/or examples and explanations of the specific message types (Monolith, Uzor, Komanda). This removes the current collection and replaces it with an easy to understand listing of how messages are being sent on The Buzzer.

However, before committing such a big change, I wanted to ask the community.

--ZapdoZ9000 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I've been trying to remove the worst ones but people like to add new ones, even if they are just sourced from a You Tube video. This isn't a log book! Secretlondon (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I've replaced it now. Sourcing from YouTube isn't a problem in my opinion, since it is a commonly used platform for UVB-76 related content nowadays. There are some fake recordings for sure, but a lot of known channels do upload valid content. --ZapdoZ9000 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source and cannot be used for Wikipedia as a source of information. You can link to a video as an example of something, but any statements needs to cite something better. WP:RS Secretlondon (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Recordings of the voice messages and records of interferences

If possible could someone provide recordings of the messages and a list (and recordings if possible) of notable interferences and unusual behaviour? I know that there is almost daily someone playing music or doing something else in the same freqency, but the most known interferences and unusual behaviour should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.165.194 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No record of the new channel marker

Nobody has edited the page to show adequate evidence of the change in sound of the channel marker ever since it happened on January 4, 2022. The only edit mentioning this that has ever been made on the page was probably by a kid with bad grammar and it was reverted.

There is a YouTube video showing the change of channel markers happening live[1]. I know that this is just a singular YouTube video, but if you want more evidence just go listen to the station yourself and record the new channel marker.

Please note that I'm not logged into Wikipedia, and that's because i'm most likely never going to create an account. 2603:8080:570D:B29E:7811:1CF8:1BAB:D5AC (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLlXIXupF3k

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research in "Location and function"

In particular, the two paragraphs I added [original research?] to. I have no strong feelings about what the function may be and I don't think these explanations are unreasonable, but these have no source, and they also appear to steer readers towards a certain (unconfirmed) explanation. Can someone please add some expert sources here, and instead of framing it the way it's stated now, say "signals intelligence analyst <insert name here> argues this is unlikely, because..." or something specific like that? Thanks.

Myconix (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sudden(?) hijack in 2022(?)

As I type, January 20th 2022 00:08GMT, the station is playing Hey Jude by the Beatles. Somebody has been hijacking the station for presumably days, displaying obscene images on the waterfall one sees when analyzing the waveform (as well as typing out things such as their telegram name, and "penis" in russian) and playing rock music, and somebody says that this has been going on since late 2020...? Editing this page to suggest that somebody do more investigation and listen for an hour or two, and maybe add onto the article about this, since this is pretty significant after all assuming that it has gone on for days without government intervention. I would add something myself, but I see somebody already tried that and got their edit rolled back with no explanation, so I think a discussion should started about this.

The reason why this stuff hasn't been mentioned (I'm aware of it, don't worry) is that there's not enough good media coverage on it. Wikipedia thrives on citations (WP:CITENEED) and unverified facts get deleted. When a good media source, like The Verge, covers it in further detail, I will edit the article as necessary. elijahpepe@wikipedia 03:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
We're also NOT A LOG BOOK. We don't care about every bit of vandalism on the frequency. Secretlondon (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There's sufficient media coverage at least to warrant a piece on the article. Wikipedia doesn't omit the incidents that happen to Disneyland, or the movie Rust, or the npm package manager, because "we're not a log book". If there is sufficient media coverage on an event it is fine enough to be on Wikipedia because it's already notable. This isn't as if the station gets hijacked every week (in which case that would still be mentioned if some form of a reliable source covered it). elijahpepe@wikipedia 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Today is 23/01/2022 and there's only static being transmited. There are news about the jammings at kotaku and vice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phack0 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Then dig out the references. Secretlondon (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My main reasoning for asking this is the fact that there have been pictures floating around of other things people are seeing in their spectrum analyzers, but I'm unsure if this would be superfluous or not to include. Some examples of what people are seeing can be found here. Pardon if my wordings all over the place or my message is unclear, I'm about to head to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioHobbyist (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They are not properly licensed. Also its just pirates. Secretlondon (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Buzzer had broken in January

The buzzer broke. Replaced with a pip sound for a while. it's back now. 2600:1014:B1A0:97D4:8D12:3625:E1BD:9878 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The "possibly 1976" claim is back in the page and using an opinion

The editor DigitalIceAge added this on 18 February 2022 Buzzer was first RECORDED in 1982; found a print source stating it was first heard around the late 1970s The "print source" footnote [5] is from the The Buzzer Primer which states via some author called "Tucana" : "Reports of first activity range from 1976 to 1982" Yet no evidence is given or shown as to who or what these "reports" were.

Footnote [6] states: "For most of its existence, which has been traced back to an original airdate in 1976," Says who? Where did this "traced back" "original airdate" come from and from whom? The link says You might have access to the full article... Why quote from something that can't be checked in full. Who is or was Harris, Shane. The Daily Beast, New York: The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC. "in 1976" source?

From Archive 2 UVB-76 pre-foghorn/buzzer days

4625kHz Confidential Frequency List 3rd Edition (1976) (no listing)

4625kHz Confidential Frequency List 4th Edition (1979) (no listing)

The author "Tucana" in The Buzzer Primer cited above writes "first activity range from 1976 to 1982"; "Internet is full of Buzzer folklore"; "Reports of the station's emergence vary from 1976 to 1982"; "an enormous amount of false information about the Buzzer online";

50.38.87.252 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tolong

Y 114.10.17.175 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hijackings

After the many hijackings, many of which have affected pop culture, should we add a section to it? I know the Weeb hijackings was popular and some have gotten onto the news. Evenite (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If any of them make the news then the ones that make the news (as long as the news source is reliable). You Tube etc isn't the news. This article keeps ending up a log book, which needs heavy watching and pruning. Secretlondon (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Translitteration

In the section Other callsigns, Ц has variously been transcribed to C and Ts, and Х variously to H and Kh. Is there any motivation for using different translitteration systems within the same list? 92.35.38.247 (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What is this?

I'm rather unsure what it is and as it seems Wikipedia does not seem to know either it could be a signaling station supposed to send messages to high ranking military personnel by looking at the one time where a pirate communicated with someone its likely to be operated by a human operator but there is a possibility that it could be automated in some form to just simply pass messages along from Moscow but with the advent of the internet they may have kept it around for some sort of legacy use. But no one is exactly sure at the moment -eye 207.255.133.237 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:UVB-76/Archive_2&oldid=1248105493"