To the Yahoo! Style writer: In regard to your word choice, it’s wrong.
The expression is in regard to or with regard to, or even just regarding.
When I read these three numbers on Yahoo! Style I was confused. Then I read the explanation and I was even more confused:
If you’re in the U.S., the tattoo “07.09” represents July 9th; in the U.K., it’s September 7th. And in the mind of the writer, it’s August 7th.
The writer was considerate enough to include a picture of the tattoo and it provides the explanation I’ve been looking for: The writer is incapable of copying numbers:
If you’re trying to read this article from Yahoo! Style and you’re stumbling on some serious misspellings, you just gotta work through it:
Was Ms. Willis paling around, bleaching her skin? Or was she palling around with friends? You decide. Did you notice that the writer didn’t leave intact intact? Yeah, me, too. And I’m pretty sure Ms. Willis didn’t say she “gotta work though it,” aren’t you?
With this many mistakes in a single sentence, it’s a safe bet that this Yahoo! Style writer won’t be winning any journalism prizes:
I gotta give her credit for trying to use a hyphen, though she got that wrong. It should be Emmy Award-winning. It’s downhill from there: that was featured should be who were featured. Although it’s not grammatically incorrect to refer to human beings with that, it is considered impolite; that’s why she should have used who. And was featured is grammatically horrific since its subject is powerhouses. Finally, we have women in the TV, which may sound correct to those learning English. To the rest of us, it’s the worst.