more on "Disruptive behaviour" 

Thank you for your thoughts, especially on your expressed belief in my in-good-faith actions. I've recently discovered (perhaps rediscovered) that the article was possibly semiprotected and that my bold (as per WP:BOLD and perhaps contrary to WP:CYCLE) act of trying to rename it might require some form of consensus on that step. I could take the liberty and not agree with you that I have given a proposal at all, exactly because of my act (without any prior discussion about it) given, and if so, I could conclude that then there was nothing to reject in the first place. Not to mention that the terms overwhelming or even majority are to the least inappropriate, if not even biased. I concur that the argument of temporal proximity of discussions and renamings could be regarded as an arguments for not to rename again, but I think it doesn't suffice. Thank you for the link provided, I cherish the gesture a lot.
I could again be free and express my disagreement with your opinion that I have to perform the rename via WP:RM, for I could consider that there is no obligatory procedure to be taken for such an act of renaming. Why, WP:RM is merely a guideline, if it is at all - nothing is stated at the page. Perhaps a project is the right name to select for WP:RM, as it is implied on the page itself. Since, the term project inherently has no attributes of obligation - if not even posesses a certain quality of casualness - I might considered the term has quite different characteristics. But, I honestly appreciate you informing me on this issue. All the best, 's talk