make LoadStringW pass tests (fixed merge conflict)

[Christopher]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Christopher <raccoonone at procyongames.com> writes:
>
>   
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>     
>>> Why don't you just name the new parameter the same name as the
>>> function parameter ('buffer' or some variation)?  junkpointer is a
>>> terrible variable name.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> sure, I will change it.
>>     
>
> Actually what you should do is take advantage of the fact that the
> pointer is returned to simplify the code and avoid a second LoadStringW
> call.
>
>   
Is there more work I need to do on this patch? I noticed that the new 
copy that I sent in, with the corrections that everyone suggested, still 
hasn't been accepted.

Christopher Berner