Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology)

[Welsh cake]

And from that I have to assume you haven't actually read his work...

I have not read all of his published works. My patience with him was thoroughly exhausted after he started asserting from probability that evolution and naturalism were 'self-defeating' because they were contradictory to his (Plantinga's) calculations. I also haven't read everything C.S Lewis ever wrote down either. So what? Please tell me whether any of this really matters at the end of the day.

I don't have all-my-life to get worked up over some guy who counter-argues everything given to him or thinks naturalism is an incoherent mess because it doesn't acknowledge his god-concept or other supernatural entities.

You don't doubt his reasoning skills, but you this he is unable to appreciate a logical and rational argument? How are those two statements not a contradiction?

Right, but now we're talking about philosophy and yes, the labour of reason is rationality, however reasoned arguments are not quite the same as rational arguments. Plantinga used his reasoning skills to generate the conclusion of the premise that Christianity is true (by faith) did he not?

As for his abilities, how about this: Plantinga was the one who defeated Rowe's argument from evil

No, Void he did not. He used the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card with the free-will clause which doesn't resolve the Epicurean logical paradox William L. Rowe developed his work upon. Rowe's position is questionable as well at any rate, I've read several of his reviews and papers and couldn't for the life of me understand how he was actually defending theistic arguments or following (maybe even supporting) Plantinga's work.

He started the post-positivism boom of Christian philosophy, his work in "The nature of necessity" is praised by philosophers regardless of their religious beliefs and his early "God and other minds" was a fairly serious challenge for many epistemologies.

Oh I bet it was, asserting the claim "God is rationally justified" would blow anyone's socks off. I couldn't possibly think of one single way to respond to that claim. Nope. At this point it is worth mentioning to you that I do not care what the reception of people's work is; I care about substance, the content of their work, in other words is it rational? Meaningful? And so on. The Bible for all its atrocious dogmatic content, absurd ethnics and continuity contradictions is also widely cited as an important "flawless work" of art, so what?

He didn't redefine epistemology

He redefined or rather 'bastardised' epistemology into something where he could defend his faith as rational. Have you also read criticisms of his work?