" 
 :: To answer your question, it's considered vandalism because   
 There is a set format for Wikipedia articles - have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of style for an example of the types of guidelines we follow.  All articles are different, but for the total Wikipedia package to work, there needs to be some conventions followed about how articles are set out.  All articles need to have a similar look and feel, and need to convey the impression that they are part of a larger ""set"" of articles.  The Blondie article you keep contributing is jarring both visually and in terms of its style.  Doesn't mean it's inaccurate, just inappropriate.   This format was set up before you got here, and before I got here, and it's still evolving.   

 The articles grow and are edited by consensus.  This means you have equal right to contribute but it does not mean you have more right.   If you are overruled by several people on something that you want to put in an article, you have to be gracious about it, and just accept that you don't win them all.   When several people change your edits, and you arrogantly change them back without considering that your opinion is just one of many, you are basically saying that your opinion is worth more than everyone else's.   When you then stubbornly revert back to something that has already been explained to you as inappropriate, that's vandalism.  It's not part of working in a community, where you would be very welcome if you took the time to try to understand how things work.  

 Several times you have made numerous words bold in the Blondie article.  Find me one other article here, where every noun, or person's name, or album name etc are bold, and where it has remained that way after consensus from other contributors, and I'll stop protesting.  You won't find such an article though.  Also you persistently add the ""Blondie is this, Blondie is that etc. Blondie is something else"" statement. It looks like an advertising slogan.  It belongs on a fan page because it's strong and it's effective.  It's not encyclopedic though, and that's why it doesn't belong here.  It's a point of view, and whether the point of view is right or wrong is not the point, the tone of these articles should be neutral.   

 You obviously have a lot to contribute, but you seem to be not interested in learning how this system works.  You could actually improve these Blondie articles, because they have always been severely lacking.  I think it's a shame because you're obviously passionate and knowledgeable about this subject.  "