User talk:ChaseKiwi

Paul Graham (computer programmer)'s hierarchy of disagreement.
Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid in interactions
See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, ChaseKiwi!

Happy New Year!

ChaseKiwi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mikenorton (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

2014 Eketāhuna earthquake

Hi an hour ago there was a news report that linked last night's earthquake in Eketāhuna to the one in 2014, saying that it its possible (but hard to tell) that it's an aftershock of the 2014 earthquake. Do you think the article for the 2014 earthquake should include this? ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is news report rubbish. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright good I checked with you then. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there exist definitions of aftershock in that sense that should have been complied with.

For your potential personal interest the area under Eketāhuna had a new minor cluster of small pre-shocks in locality that I had noted while debugging a NZ specific version of a 3D display web app of json formatted earthquake event data streamed data that had only existed for 2 weeks. That project resulted from beginning of January frustration with poor data display by Iceland Met Office web site of its recent earthquakes, as a higher quality website displaying same data announced it was about to go off line. The Iceland work resulted in ability to better display a summary of NZ recent seismic data from Geonet than Geonet currently does, for example showing well the subducting slab. ChaseKiwi (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting work you're doing. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I've just remembered that for a while I've been meaning to ask you if it's possible that you can review the seismology part of the article December 2010 Christchurch earthquake (it's a few paragraphs) as I'm planning on making a good article nomination but don't actually understand any of that seismology/geology/whatever it's called stuff -- I'm only really interested in the things that happen above ground. But no worries if you don't feel like it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with no claim to being a seismologist or geologist either. ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very much appreciated. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Taranaki

Hi. Can you check your recent work on Mount Taranaki please, as it seems you have mistakenly duplicated the "Older volcanoes in the area" section. Ta. Nurg (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the dangers of resolving an editing conflict by cut and paste ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and geomorphology of Kahurangi National Park

That's a stunner of a map! I'm currently working on a geology article (of sorts) where I need to sort out mapping. Just in case you want to get involved in one way or another: Draft:Sams Creek mining Schwede66 03:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks doable although I have never done the ground there so sense checking of any resulting abstraction would be best. Will be a geology map based on the Park one at larger scale and it will be especially useful if I can find a map of the surface projection of the Sams Creek Dyke. ChaseKiwi (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found Fig 1. Windle and Craw 1991 so its confirmed as a project ChaseKiwi (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've flicked you a Wiki-email. There's something that I'd like to forward to you. Schwede66 11:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a map to the draft. Cheers ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taupō Volcanic Zone

Hi, many articles relating to the Taupō Volcanic Zone seem to use |Volcanic arc/belt= and I was just wondering what would be a better parameter to use. The Taupō Volcanic Zone doesn't seem to be an arc so would |volcanic belt= or |volcanic region= be more appropiate? Volcanoguy 20:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically its probably a rift but is also potentially continuation of the Kermadec arc and not resolved in the literature some would say. Classic example why removing |Volcanic arc/belt= as parameter stupid idea. Using region removes information but if you said Taupō Volcanic Region people with geology knowledge would sort know what you meant and no one would refer to it as a belt as its more like a knife. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using |Volcanic region= doesn't mean the Taupō Volcanic Zone should be called the Taupō Volcanic Region; Taupō Volcanic Zone is by far the most commonly used name for this volcanic area. Rifts, faults, subduction zones, etc. are tectonic features rather than volcanic ones so to say the Taupō Volcanic Zone is a rift isn't really accurate; it would be an area of volcanic activity inside a rift. Volcanoguy 16:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status Monitoring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:DRN_case_status ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Rotomahana and Lake Tarawera relative elevations

Dear ChaseKiwi, this year my final three papers on the Rotomahana basin are entering publication. In looking at loose ends on these lake pages, I noted the appendix to the Lake Rotomahana page. This has been clarified by recent research and should be updated, along with a number of other lake points on these pages. Is the appendix yours? If so, where can I provide you material for that appendix? Rex Bunn ~2025-33949-45 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once published happy to look at them as sources given your diligence on issue ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodo, I once had an email for you IIRC, but have mislaid it. I'll reply here with links, expectedly before Xmas. Rex ~2025-33949-45 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These academic literature figures for the difference in water level between the old and present Lake Rotomahana differ mainly due to different assumptions and absolute baselines relative to sea level (a. s. l.). Because a recent 2021 claim of 60 m difference by a non-academic media source (Daly, Michael (17 March 2021) in Stuff) was identified, a sense check recalculation was done and the non academic source was unable to be verified up to August 2023, as it implies a 30 m odd change in relative lake levels from the present.

I agree there is no evidence for this claim.

The sense check calculation took the following into account. GPS data since it has been available shows that this area of the Taupō Rift is sinking relative to the coast and this has remained linear for the last 16 years at NZ Geonet station RGTA on Mount Tarawera. It seems reasonable to assume that the outlet of Lake Tarawera and the land around the present Rotomahama has sunk at a similar rate towards a. s. l..

Suggest you look at Holden et al 2015, Figs 5 - 6. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv243. They draw on multiple stations inc. RGTA. There is subsidence at Lake Tarawera but little at Rotomahana. Holden et al suggest there is slight uplift  there. Extrapolating to 125 years, 1886–2011, Tarawera subsidence might be <1–2 m but at Rotomahana nearer 0–0.6 m at most. The uplift and subsidence data are consistent with our observations at Rotomahana in 2014 i.e. that there was tilt at the lake, with the NW corner jetty submerged in the past c. 10 years. Members of my team recalled diving off the submerged jetty when they were kids. I’d guesstimate the long-run interlake differential in subsidence/uplift  would be ≤ 1 m. This is within my altimetry range of error ±1 – 2 m. This, inter alia would invalidate Ron Keam’s guess of 1–2 m gap. You may also like Valerio’s paper. He is the EIC for Frontiers in Earth Science and published two of my papers. This week, he gently rejected the third, on basis it was too narrow in scope for his global audience, and suggested a local journal, which  advice I will follow.  

Acocella, V., Spinks, K., Cole, J. & Nicol, A., 2003. Oblique back arc rifting of Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand, Tectonics, 22(4), 1045, doi:10.1029/2002TC001447.

If this is not the case, then this predicts that between 1885 and 2016 one of the lakes, could have sunk up to 1.9 m relative to the other. Perhaps the most likely deviation, looking at other nearby GNS stations, is only 0.5 m but for sense check purposes the biggest possible difference was allowed as GNS rate of change data was not available for one estimate. GNS datum rate of change at all Bay of Plenty sea side locations is less than a tenth of the value inland and sea level change due to ice cap melting is also not likely to be significant in the calculation since 1886. An historic assumption that the old Lake Rotomahana level was about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) higher than Lake Tarawera,^: 41 is likely incorrect as the difference is documented to be 12 m (39 ft) in a pre 1886 source.^: 11

Agree. Ron had no evidence for his guess.

So as we have a disagreement of about 10 m difference in lake levels at the time of the eruption from these two sources different assumptions.

The problem is deeper. Geologists from Bell forward tried to perform altimetry using two lake levels and barometers. This is asking for trouble as lake levels vary. The datum moves. Then we have the eruption that transformed the landscape and impacted the Tarawera water level while dissecting Rotomahana. A land datum was needed but the eruption buried many of the early surveyors’ landmarks.

I address this in what will be my final paper to be published, now in 2026. You can read my review of altimetry in the preprint: https://essopenarchive.org/users/559489/articles/1266686-a-simple-surveyor-s-error-condemned-the-white-terrace-wonder-of-the-world

I guess as David Lowe’s non-reviewed letter is cited several times on the Tarawera eruption Wiki page, then this preprint is also acceptable.

I mentioned this also in: https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/AJVS/article/view/21135

What we have left to know is the relative change in lake level of Lake Tarawera. In 2005 Hodgson and Nairn did this working forwards from 1886. The relative change data for Lake Tarawera, is known, as initially its outlet was blocked by the 1886 eruption with the lake level rising by 12.8 m (42 ft). The 1904 volcanic debris dam break dropped the level by 3.35 m (11.0 ft) and since then there has been minimal change. So we know that the 1886 level was 9 m (30 ft) [~9.45 m ARB] lower than the current Lake Tarawera level but to this must add 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) [≤ 1 m] so the 1886 level was 7.1 m (23 ft) [~8.45 m] lower than present [ i.e. 298- 8.45 = 289.55 m. This is consistent with Ian Nairn’s figure].

Patching in the Kaiwaka descent of 12.2 m gives an estimated altitude for old Lake Rotomahana of 301.75 m. This is within our long-run altitude of 303 m  ±1 – 2 m. On eruption eve, the lake was low (from photointerpretation of shoreline and foliage patterns. I use ~301 m for 9/6/1886.

The current lake level as of 2016 was 340 m (1,120 ft) of Lake Rotomahana, with a known difference in current lake levels between Tarawera and Rotomahana of 39 m (128 ft). [The long-run altitude is 334– 342 m over the past 100 years. This century it’s 337.5–340.3 m, so the interlake gap is closer to ~41m].

The sense check suggests the relative difference of lake levels historically as of 1886 was similar to this current difference and is within 5 m (16 ft) of the present value but the absolute heights above a.s.l. could have changed in over 100 years by about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) if current measured subsidence rates in other areas of the Taupō Rift apply for the whole period.

This sentence seems disconnected from the preceding? The interlake gap in 1886, before the eruption was ~12.2 m, 303-290m. After the eruption, on Bell and Ian’s figures, Tarawera was 290+12.8 = 302.8 m and the new Rotomahana crater rim was ~342 m near the overflow, so the putative interlake gap was, for a time ~39.2m. Today, the interlake gap is ~339-298 = ~41 m]. These data imply that, when Tarawera River was blocked by the eruption, the lake rose almost to the old altitude of Rotomahana, and Tarawera water back-flowed into the crater for a time.

While on the Tarawera eruption Wiki page, my third 2025 paper is in press for publication in December. It revises the death toll for the eruption, up 43% from David and Ron’s 120 figure to 172. The preprint for this paper was published by SSRN and was no.2 in their Top Ten papers. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5385961

The other comment on the Wiki page is  to the final sentence. The conclusion of the 2025 Sinter paper rested on the abscence of post-eruption sinter samples. I suggest this is strong negative evidence for the White Terrace laying buried versus erupted.  If it had been ‘blown up’ then the 46,213–57,289 square meters of terrace would have generated  2,000,000 (and probably 2-4 times that), small samples across the countryside. Not one piece exists. Is that not convincing negative evidence? ~2025-33949-45 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChaseKiwi, an afterthought after sleeping on your analysis. We should also consider the water level datum movements around the eruption. For example the seiches that Guide Sophia saw would have likely been ground-movements affecting the lake floor. Tarawera has steep walls and so the water level perhaps moves vertically more than lakes with shallow-sloping shores and more horizontal expansion. Also, as I think you noted, there is a high water flow into the lake. This means any subsidence in the lake floor, quickly equilibrates at the water surface, affecting any water-level datum altimetry. To this might be added the eruption ash depths around the shore. ~2025-33949-45 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknowns and absence of evidence are always a challenge in historical reconstruction. As a result of reading the pre-print I did identify that the causes of death section may be weak. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The Survivors paper published today. Here is a link:https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/AJVS/article/view/21683

Ref.negative evidence-- yes, we used to say "abscence of evidence does not mean evidence of abscence". In many fields that is no longer true. Here's a potted summary of fields where negative evidence is central.

1. Astronomy & Astrophysics

Absence of detection — e.g.,

• non-detection of a spectral line → rules out certain elements

• no gravitational waves from an event → constrains models

• no exoplanet transit → limits orbital inclinations

2. Archaeology

Used constantly.

• No artefacts in a secure stratigraphic layer → strong inference humans weren’t present at that time.

• Absence of cultural layers → absence of occupation.

3. Forensic Science

Very important:

• No gunshot residue → counts against recent firing

• No matching DNA → rules out suspects

4. Linguistics

Negative evidence is a major concept:

• If a form never appears in native speaker output.

5. Ecology, Conservation Biology & Zoology

Repeated surveys with zero sightings → used to estimate extinction probability, occupancy models, species range limits.

6. Medicine & Clinical Trials

• No observed benefit → treatment likely ineffective

• Zero ADRs in large samples → safety inference

7. Geology & Earth Sciences

Negative evidence shows up constantly.

• No tephra layer where one should be.

• No ground deformation → constrains volcanic models.

• 8. History & Historiography

Historians use the absence of claims in contemporary sources as evidence.

• No mention in eyewitness diaries → event likely didn’t happen

• No record in government files → raises red flags

9. Intelligence Analysis

• No communication traffic → enemy likely radio silent

• No troop movement → operation probably cancelled

The sinter negative evidence IMHO stands stronger than our silent predecessors, who relied on a handful of enhanced photographs and sonar. No samples. No direct observation. Rex ~2025-33949-45 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read. Fascinated by inaccuracies in Thomas's 1887 map as to drainage into Te Ariki arm and shore line of the old Lake Rotomahana and the old Lake Rotomakariri compared to Hochstetter’s earlier survey map of Lakes Tarawera, Rotomahana, Rotomakariri and Rerewhakaaitu. The rapids are even marked and reinforce the fair height difference of written accounts. 2.9 Causes of death and the gas cloud is much better in final version. H₂S poisoning is an unlikely CoD in an acute eruption like this despite say the interesting data on H₂S concentrations being maintained at Etna eruptions rather than rapidly decaying as some had predicted by oxygenation and halide combination. After all the recent White Island eruption PMs revealed the primary causes of death were severe burns (including in the airways) from the superheated steam, ash, and volcanic gases, and physical trauma. I think there was likely a lot of rather hot material that buried the local Maori that perished in the Tarawera eruption. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS -I suspect there were phreatic eruptions at Rotomahana and Rotomakariri as the basaltic dyke erupted through rather water logged swampy ground. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]