2 days ago a group of people Listed here:"Red Act, Brandon Enright, Danu, JamalS [and] John Rennie" put my question on hold as off topic. I refuted their claim that I was off topic and gave 2 quotes from this very website stating a question like mine was indeed on topic and have gotten no response whatsoever ever. I find it extraordinary that a wrongly accused questioned stay on hold and unreviewed for so long especially considering after 5 days the question gets permanently closed. I now have less than 3 days until it's closed so if an authority figure such as an admin could review my question on behalf of the website I would greatly appreciate the correction.
When an on-hold question is updated it goes into the review queue and all users with >3k rep see it. I did see your question in the review queue and I voted to leave it closed. I would guess the same applies to all the other reviewers.
The reason why I voted to close your question, then voted against reopening it, is that it can't be answered using the laws of physics because you propose a physically impossible situation. Your question even concedes that:
If I were to break the laws of the universe and shrink down to the size of a nucleus
The long term aim of this site is to provide a definitive searchable resource for anyone interested in Physics. That means we expect answers to be based on impeccable physical reasoning and we downvote and close answers that do not meet this standard. It is impossible to answer your question whilst maintaining the standards expected of answers posted here, and that's why your question was closed and remains closed.
Your question was reviewed by a moderator, whose decision - leaving it on-hold - reflects that the question still suffers from the problem for which it was closed.
It's unusual for further information to be left in these cases; unless there's something specific that you could do to alter the question such that it would be allowed here, there's really nothing more to say.
The problem with your question is that it deals with counterfactual physics. These are only on-topic in a few cases but this is far from that. There is no way to answer your question because the situation you ask about would not happen within real physics. To get an answer you'd have to extend the laws of physics to that case and the are multiple, non-unique ways to do that. Hence your question is more about science fiction than science.
Regarding the review procedure, it worked pretty much as intended. Your edit was really minor and does not really warrant a specific response. You do have to assume that after a day or so (but usually a few hours), your edit has been seen and deemed insufficient. Your options then are to continue editing, or ask on meta for further guidance, which you did. (That said, a less confrontational attitude where you simply ask why exactly your question was thought off-topic, and how you can fix it, will be a lot easier to work with and will make less people not bother with a confrontational post.)
You are correct that the closure text does not completely cover what's wrong with your question. This is by design: we have a small number of canned closure reasons and we get more personal theories than counterfactual queries. In a case like this it is good practice to leave a comment explaining why it's off-topic, which Red Act did, before the question was closed. Until you had actually addressed that, there's little point in providing further input.