Yes. The article is not so clear, but yes that seems to be the gist.
Wonder if the Sanskrit commentators made clear that Bodhi Warrior is what is meant by bodhisatva? That sure puts more life and color into bodhi being; suggesting a Warrior for Bodhi for others and a Warrior to become such. I like it.
The article doesn't seem to mention that.
Here's a passage from Dayal's "The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature":
Now bodhisatta in the Pāli texts seems to mean "a bodhi-being ". But satta here does not denote a mere ordinary creature. It is almost certainly related to the Vedic word satvan, which means "Krieger", "a strong or valiant man, hero, warrior." In this way, we can also understand the final dpaḥ in the Tibetan equivalent. Satta in Pāli bodhisatta should be interpreted as "heroic being, spiritual warrior ".
(dpaḥ is an old transliteration for the word that is now usually transliterated dpa'. Bodhisat(t)va is translated as byang chub sems dpa' in Tibetan, with byang chub sems corresponding to bodhi and dpa' corresponding to sat(t)va. The meaning of dpa' is similar to that of satvan given above.)
Here's Duff's glossary entry on "Satva and sattva":
Satva and sattva: According to the Tibetan tradition established at the time of the great translation work done at Samye under the watch of Padmasambhava not to mention the one hundred and sixty three of the greatest Buddhist scholars of Sanskrit-speaking India, there is a difference of meaning between the Sanskrit terms "satva" and "sattva", with satva meaning "an heroic kind of being" and "sattva" meaning simply "a being". According to the Tibetan tradition established under the advice of the Indian scholars mentioned above, satva is correct for the words Vajrasatva and bodhisatva, whereas sattva is correct for the words samayasattva, samadhisattva, and jnanasattva, and is also used alone to refer to any or all of these three satvas.
All Tibetan texts produced since the time of the great translations conform to this system and all Tibetan experts agree that this is correct, but Western translators of Tibetan texts have for last few hundreds of years claimed that they know better and have "satva" to "sattva" in every case, causing confusion amongst Westerners confronted by the correct spellings. Recently, publications by Western Sanskrit scholars have been appearing in which these great experts finally admit that they were wrong and that the Tibetan system is and always has been correct!
Gotta love Tony's style.