Many of your stats in an all time sense are meaningless. Weeks at #1 when there was no computer ranking before 1975 (might work for Federer vs Nadal, but Federer vs Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Hoad, Rosewall, and many others it is pure BS) yet you post it like it is proof of the last century of tennis. Slam wins the same applies, when it also doesnt give any realistic chance to players before 1970.
The rest are only manipulated stats that YOU deem as most important- quarterfinal streak, slams played in a row. Total BS as anyone could make up a similar list and invent stats that suit them better, like for instance a Nadal or Laver fan- most years in a row winning atleast 1 slam, winning all the slams multiple times, winning multiple slams on each surface at the time, winning slams over a certain number of years, Masters or Master equivalent titles, total tournament titles (where Laver has double what Federer has), times winning the Calendar Slam. As for slam wins and time at #1 the only way to fairly compare players ALL TIME is to take the official list of number 1 players by year, first selected by a panel of experts, and later by the computer, and in that case Federer trails all of Gonzales, Tilden, Laver, Sampras. Meanwhile Rosewall and Gonzales have won more pro slams (even discounting their amateur slams) than Federer did Open Era slams, and that was without even an Australian Open Pro, and losing all their amateur slams, which in reality gives them fewer slams than they almost certainly would have even with an Open field, and still more than Federer has.
Anyway if I see you posting that nonsense list again I will make my own and post it directly after each time I see it, so have fun with that.