You, again, have confused yourself. My definition does in fact include logical impossibilities; and every time you've said that omnipotence requires the logically absurd, I've agreed as that is my point.
It is the definition you've chosen to defend. I happen to say that no, such a being would not be omnipotent that is why omnipotence must include the logically impossible.
I'll also note that in this post you've again demonstrated the inconsistency of your position; you must choose whether failure or its absolute lack is representative of omnipotence. You cannot reasonably attack from both sides.