Aboudd -
Rather than ask people to email you their responses, the responses should be posted here, so others can benefit from this knowledge as well. You can come back to visit the thread at your leisure to see what people have to say.
I have not shot these side-by-side for a detailed comparison, but have owned and shot both lenses at different times, and on different bodies.
I shot the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon 1Ds3 and 5DII, and of course the WATE on an M9.
Both are fantastic lenses. The Nikon is significantly better than the equivalent Canon wide-angle (16-35L II), and nearly as good as the famous Zeiss 21 Distagon.
The WATE is also an exceptional lens. It is quite sharp, all the way to the edges of the full-frame M9 sensor, and has minimal distortion. From memory, the WATE has less distortion than the Nikon.
The Nikon is a huge lens. That lens by itself is probably bigger than an M9 w/ WATE mounted. So the M9/WATE combo opens up a completely different level of freedom and shooting style.
I would not hesitate to use the M9/WATE combo in critical situations, such as critical architectural shots. It's that good.
I never used the Nikon in those situations, so can't comment on that, but the Nikon was fantastic as a landscape lens (where distortion is less critical).
My personal choice would be the M9/WATE combo, simply for the size/weight advantages. I think either lens will produce excellent image quality.
Mike