I had this posted in 1210, but concensus seems to be that I need to clear up the concept. After sleeping on it, I tend to agree. Please comb through and nitpick the coin in the sandbox and ask lots of questions; it's losing something between my brain and the paper. I believe this could be awesome but not without you!
My reply is rushed due to time, but I may come back and edit it. Here are my points
First- It is a cool idea.
Second- Some of the wording feels a little odd
Third- It reads like a novel. I like this, but SCPs need to feel more detached. However, I can't really tell you how to do this since I failed in the same manner and nobody really clarified any points on sounding like a scientist. Most of the third problem rests in the Activation Events section, but some of the words in the Containment Procedures don't feel right (though others felt spot on in other parts like metallurgical analysis, activation events, and correlation).
Fourth- I am really trying to be helpful so just question me if any of the above makes no sense.
Fifth- I must run, but will return in an hour or two.
Headcanon decision: the foundation would not publish until the conclusion of the causality study. editing to push the entry forward in it's own timeline.
oh.. the spit thing is gone too. i have another idea.
I fixed a couple of words that should have been capitalized, no changes to the substance of the article.
It's much improved over my previous reading. MUCH. Tone is more clinical, grammar is more functional. Streamlining works well. If I may make a suggestion, the phrase 'When allowed to land on heads or tails' would work better thus: "When permitted to land on a surface". That would flow better, I think.
I personally think it's quite a decent SCP, just could use more test logs (I love test logs).
1: Research for more significant dates is ongoing; more will definitely be added as I uncover them.
2: I altered the wording as suggested, good call.
3: YOU JUST HAD TO EDIT UNDER THE BIG SCARY LINE DIDN'T YOU!! (Given, it's more for those editing the other thing, but I see how you are, rebel! Thanks for the caps.)
Re: #3 - I did, I really did. Because that's where you put the actual article, as opposed to that weird stuff above that which, while entertaining, was clearly a red herring designed to distract people. Or something.
Also, Nobody tells me what to do. :)