Regarding the Main Purpose of Closure
Hi Taryn: It's me, Tonepoet again: I was the person who advised you on how to get the question reopened the first time. I was worried this might happen and I hope to be able to help you get it reopened again, if it is possible. Although I can not speak on MetaEd's behalf, I surmise that it should indeed be possible.
I know this is frustrating, but please don't be too discouraged by this, because we intend for closure to be a cyclitic process designed to prevent bad answers from being posted, and overrated while a question is in need of refinement. If a question can be edited to be within scope, we really do want to encourage such edits. As I said before, War of the Closes explains everything. It helps you to get the most thoughtful and useful answers if you follow our procedures, which is the main reason we have them in place. Well, maybe not you personally at this point: Part of our goal here is to build a library of answers for the future reference of others.
Questions which do not comply can be problematic for us. As you see, your first formerly accepted answer "don't care a whit" has 88 votes for it which gives it the appearance of winning by a landslide and burdens more suitable answers with insurmountable odds to beat, even though it may not seem to really be what you are seeking based on the fact that you unaccepted it. This is detrimental to the intended purpose of voting, which is to serve as a system of peer review.
You can not cure a disease without knowing what it is. Now personally, I think the question is good enough in its current state, but others disagree. Based upon the comments, I see a few complaints and I shall try to explain them for you:
Originally, the only thing that suggested to me that the question might be off-topic is that the answer seemed too easy to find, as demonstrated by a comment by Edwin Ashworth. We discussed this in great detail already, and you have mostly fixed the problem through the inclusion of some research. However, Edwin seems to maintain his complaint:
(a) Find the obvious possibilities yourself (though they have been googled for you now). (b) Delete the question here and ask for suggested less obvious alternatives to 'don't care a whit', 'don't care a [wild] fig', 'don't care a bit', 'don't care a dime', 'don't care a feather' over on Writers SE, asking further which of all the alternatives best fits your poem.
Primarily Opinion Based
If you reread the closure reason, you should see that this particular closure reason is not really about whether or not you did research, so much as the types of answers it solicits:
… but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.
I am not really of the opinion that this is primarily opinion based, because most of the answers are backed up with at least a rudimentary reference, per the closure reason text, and while there are some answers which transgress our usual expectations, that is to be expected with such a popularly viewed question.
However there are a couple of red flags. Although the strongest community consensus suggests that poetry is not strictly off-topic, we tend to place it under much greater scrutiny due to the tendency to break prosaic rules for the sake of prosodic causes. We don't really want to compromise the semantics of the answer to syllabify it smoothly. English Language & Usage mostly just concerns itself with the grammar of English prose, and we expect answers to take the usual systematic of the language into account.
Additionally, "creative" can be interpreted as meaning just about anything. Somebody could suggest that using a word like whale ironically would be a creative solution, and it is wholly unique, but I assume that is not the effect you desire.
More information about what constitutes the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable answer under the Primarily Opinion Based closure standards can be read at Good Subjective, Bad Subjective, and What Types of Questions Should I Avoid Asking?
MetaEd alluded to the prior closure text of this closure reason, and MariLouA's answer addresses this matter, and I won't retread too much ground. However, for some reason the text of this closure reason was not provided, which makes it difficult to understand, so I shall do that.
First it is worth noting that because the ultimate goal of Stack Exchange is to build a sort of reference work, that we want the competing answers to be relatively digestible, and easier to sort through than going through every website on google. That is why the closure reason used to read as follows:
There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.
Recently, the text of this closure reason has been changed, in a manner that I do not think is really helpful because it seems like a duplicate of unclear what you are asking:
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.
For our purposes, I am going to assume that it is the former wording that is the cause of concern, due to the sort of analysis given.
A Few Suggestions for Improvement
Remove Reference to Vague Notions of Creativity
It is really unnecessary, and while it does encourage unique answers, it encourages primarily opinion based ones too. I suspect this was mostly overcompensation for the fact that the question was closed as being general reference anyway. You may want to consider soliciting explanations, rather than creativity.
Show Us All of the Autofill Suggestions & Explain Why You've Dismissed Them
This would help to further demonstrate that a somewhat reasonable research effort would have been more difficult than it seems and show us that you are not just looking for any old answer. It would give us an idea of what factors mitigate against against a choice, which does not only rule out the suggestions made, but all suggestions which share those factors in common.
An additional benefit is that people who want to suggest one of those answers anyway would then need to provide additional explanation regarding why you were too hasty to dismiss these answers in order to justify it. Maybe don't care a whit actually is the right answer for instance, but the single entry at The Free Dictionary does not adequately explain why it is the right answer. All it provides after-all, is the barest explanation of its meaning. This helps us to make better explanations than the ones already out there.
It would help if you included a screenshot of the options provided, like this:
Read How Do I Format My Posts Using Markdown or H.T.M.L? for some information regarding how to do that, and feel free to use the screenshot I have provided. I know that getting it can be a little tricky: I had to use a timed screenshot to snag it without dismissing the suggestions.
Tell Us More About What Kind of Meaning You Want The Word to Signify
You are the poet, and only you know what type of word it is that you want. What we are here to do is to help you find it. If you did this, it would further limit the list of applicable answers to the one which communicates that concept. It encourages our users to try and prove that their word is the closest match to the meaning you want to communicate and in an easily found in pre-existing resource.
I know it may be hard to figure out how, but your poem seems to involve the subjects of labor and nuclear power. Perhaps you could explain more about why you chose that subject, and how your word should fit that particular context, instead of leaving it up to community discretion to decide for themselves what constitutes creatively fitting into the poem. As the poet, it is your responsibility to determine what it is you want to express: We are just here to help you determine what the best way to express it is after you decide that.
Miscellaneous Notes Regarding Moderators & Reopening Procedures:
I am mostly just writing this as a guide regarding how to optimize your odds of reopening the question:
As you can see from the diamond next to his name, MetaEd is a moderator, so pursuant to the procedures mentioned in What If I Disagree with the Closure of a Question? How Can I Reopen It? you may raise a custom flag the question for reopening. This helps to balance out the disproportionate voting power moderators have, without compromising their authority. I would only recommend doing this after you have performed the sorts of edits I already suggested, so that the moderator reviewing the flag sees a reason to change his verdict. However, the moderators here also do not seem to like to go over each other's heads, so instead of flagging the question, you may want to ping MetaEd directly in a comment by typing @MetaEd at the start of a comment. He is now the main person you need to persuade that the question should be reopened, and as such you should definitely heed the advice he gave in the comments.
If the moderators are still reluctant to reopen the question after you have implemented the suggestions I gave, ping me by commenting under this answer. I'll consider if you heeded my advice well enough, and if you have, without creating other unforeseen problems, then I'll cast my own vote to reopen. The community was already receptive towards opening the question in its present form, so it should not be too hard to get it reopened again, and it should be quite easy to get them to do so again if even more improvements are made.
Although sometimes moderators have the ability to exercise some exceptionalism if they deem it necessary, which is part of why we have moderators in the first place, the moderators here are usually elected by our members, based upon their understanding and ability to carry out the community's overall will, and hence they tend to yield to the discretion of the general community, so if the community votes to reopen the question again, I doubt we'll see more moderator intervention to the contrary. I can't guarantee it though.