Is it correct to say, "My hypothesis is correct"?

Here's a long version, cut and pasted from Wiki:
Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive method (also known as the method of "conjectures and refutations") demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be "confirmed", because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, i.e., we can act as if it is true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't mean that we never will--however improbable, our theory of gravity may be falsified some day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Evaluating_hypotheses

I'd vote for a big, fat NO! An hypothesis is an "assumption" which may or may not be proven "correct." Once proven correct, the hypothesis "WAS" correct or IS now fact. Until proven correct (or incorrect), a hypothesis remains in limbo...neither correct or incorrect.

Hypothesis is defined as:

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis

More on the scientific end of an hypothesis:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

It can be correct to say 'I believe that my hypothesis is correct'.
The use of the word 'falsifiable' is correct, but can cause some to think that the theory/hypothesis is a deliberate lie, or that the data used can be shown to be fraudulent. OK, in some cases (like that genetics business in South Korea) data can be shown to be fraudulent. That's not falsifiable is about. What it is about is more accurate observation / measurement / thought that shows the theory (etc) to be false - by the new standards. By the standards of its day, it was sound. For example, the Sun going round the Earth was quite a good workable theory in its day. Better observation falsified that theory.
As Qp quotes, failing to falsify a theory doesn't mean that it is correct. A good theory is that the man standing over the corpse with blood dripping from his unwounded hands is the murderer. In the 15th century, it would be good enough to hang him. Now, with better methods, it could be shown to be blood from the pig that the he had slaughtered, and which had been stolen by the man who killed his apprentice. (It might be shown to be blood from the victim, and the theory correct - in this instance.)

I believe too that it is wrong to say that. A hypothesis is just an idea and can always be questioned and disprovened by other scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

I needed a site ..