I love and lament the opinions of certain contributors to this board that English from England is more pure (and therefore more correct) than the English from colonials. Anyone who has done research into how language changes in the mother country vs. her colonies knows that precisely the opposite is true - that linguistic change in colonies tends to proceed slower than in the mother country.
Regarding "wait for" versus "wait on" and the assertion by @Lightness-Races-in-Orbit that no one in England would use "wait on" except Mick Jagger, I would point out William Shakespeare (a famous Englishman) used it all the time.
In fact, searching for these terms in the online Shakespeare concordance http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org, which shows you where and how many times the Bard used a certain word, reveals that although the great man used "wait for" four times (and "await for" once), he used "wait on" 16 times and "wait upon" 22 times. This is a whopping victory for the pedigree of "wait on" made even more whopping if "wait upon" is included.
I also draw readers' attention to German "warten auf", which means "to wait on / for" something and the fact that "auf" is cognate with English "on". That German and English were the same language many hundreds of years ago is also evidence that "wait on" is the older form, and that "wait for" is the upstart.
In conclusion "wait on" has just as much of a claim to "correctness" as "wait for". Use whichever you want, and know that if you use "wait on" then you are using the language of Shakespeare. Of course you should also know that nowadays "wait for" is more common and more formal. If that is important to you, then go with the upstart.