As I mentioned in a comment (which I've now deleted): I'm afraid none of us can 'unban' you. It's a system ban, it's not somebody who personally chose to impose a ban on you. Please see: What can I do when getting "We are no longer accepting questions/answers from this account"?
But, you asked
Please review some of my answers
Ok, that I can do.
IUPAC name of aldehyde with two functional groups
Nomenclature answers are always going to be tough. On Chemistry SE, the de facto standard for IUPAC nomenclature is to directly quote the appropriate rules from the 2013 Blue Book, i.e. the official guide to organic nomenclature. This is exemplified by Loong's answer on that post. This kind of answer is very tough to come up with: firstly you need to have access to a copy of the Blue Book (non-trivial), secondly you need to have the willpower to read it (also non-trivial), and thirdly it is a book with 1,500 pages: you kind of need to know your way around it before you can figure out which rule is applicable.
Note that other sources such as Wikipedia or other websites often provide simplified descriptions of the rules, which may or may not be accurate. In general, there is no other source that correctly captures every rule in the Blue Book, apart from the Blue Book itself. This means that anything that isn't the Blue Book will pretty much fall short of the community's expectations.
Technically, your answer is also wrong: the locants '1' and '4' in butanedial do not need to be given. There is a rule in the Blue Book that explains this, but you missed out on it. This is precisely what I meant when I say that other sources may correctly explain some parts of the rules, but they may not be complete.
So, is this your fault? Well, it's not your personal fault for not being able to look up the Blue Book; but at the end of the day the fact is that your answer is not as good as Loong's. Thus, the votes fall the way they do. It's not a judgment of you as a person; it's just saying that your answer isn't correct. My really honest recommendation is: if you are not prepared to take on nomenclature questions in the way that I've indicated, just don't. Maybe it's a bit exclusive, but that's the way things are.
"Bromobenzene" vs "bromophenyl"
It seems that this has already been explained, but the point of the question is why one is called 'benzene', whereas the other is called 'phenyl'. Thus, the parts of your answer where you compare the two compounds bromobenzene and bromophenylethanol are irrelevant.
But, in fact, your third point
In Bromophenyl, a hydrogen from benzene ring is replaced by a functional group, in this case ethanol.
is relevant (although I would suggest to use the word 'group' or 'moiety' instead of 'functional group', because that group could be anything, with zero, one, or many functional groups). Also, the link you provided
the difference between Bromobenzene and Bromophenyl.
is also relevant. In particular, that link (surprisingly) contains a one-liner
which is phrased a bit awkwardly, but actually explains the difference quite succinctly:
As nouns the difference between bromobenzene and bromophenyl is that bromobenzene is bromobenzene while bromophenyl is (organic chemistry) the univalent radical derived from bromobenzene by loss of a hydrogen atom.
However, this information shouldn't be hidden behind a link; you should put it in the answer itself, and provide a link to the source.
On top of that, you should contextualise this answer with respect to the original question which was posed; for example, highlighting the "bromophenyl" part in the bromophenylethanol compound, and showing that it's lacking one hydrogen compared to bromobenzene, would be part of a good answer.
The thing is that here we are all humans, and if an answer just provides a bunch of links, then it's not much better than a search engine which we could easily access. You should aim to give some unique insight, and engage with the OP's question in a way that a plain old machine can't. (Well, not yet, at least.)
