I'll throw in my two cents. For whatever reason, some people here take rules discussions way too personally, as if they wrote the rules themselves or that their interpretation is the holy Word of God. It is not my intention to insult you, simply to get to the bottom of the issue. Maybe there isn't a bottom and people have to decide for themselves, because GW writes rules poorly. Please do not see "a runic weapon" and replace it with "your mom." We can discuss like adults, it's okay. With that disclaimer out of the way...
Runic Weapon [Errata, p1]
"Furthermore, whenever an enemy model succeeds on a Psychic test within 24" of one or more models with a Runic Weapon, roll a dice..." (and to finish) "... on the roll of a 4+ that power is nullified."
Runic Weapons collectively get one and only one chance to dispel a successful Psychic test per test.
So then...
Wolf Tail Talisman
"If a model with a Wolf Tail Talisman or the unit he is with is affected by an enemy psychic power, roll a d6. On the roll of a 5+, that power is nullified."
A Wolf Tail Talisman can dispel a psychic power that affects an enemy unit, (now the important part!) which happens later in the order of operations.
So enemy makes a Leadership check to see if the Psychic power goes off, and the enemy succeeds. Runic weapons then get to roll to nullify. If you fail to nullify, the enemy then determines if your unit is affected (rolling scatter, to hit, to wound, whatever). If the enemy succeeds and your unit is affected, then you can roll to nullify again using the Wolf Tail Talisman.
Furthermore it can be interpreted if a Wolf Tail Talisman succeeds, the entire psychic power is nullified, not just the part that would affect the unit making the check with the Talisman.
This is why I believe Rune Priests have the option of buying a Wolf Tail Talisman.
Given the clarification on Runic Weapons, I think it's common sense to argue a unit with multiple Wolf Tail Talismans makes only one nullify roll.
ETA: It doesn't seem the main rulebook FAQ has any light to shed on the issue, which I knew, but thought as a resource should mention.