What you have is really funny. Problem is, you could use more of it, as this is a very short article. What you do have, however, is great, and is even funnier if you're even somewhat familiar with Heraclitus (like myself). The running jokes you've established (namely, your assertion Heraclitus was a know-it-all pussy who hated his contemporaries and everyone else for no valid reason), is not only hilarious, but based in fact, which makes it better. You just need more of this, particularly in the Philosophy section--talk about how he was rightfully called "the weeping philosopher," how he was called "the obscure" because no one knew what the fuck he was talking about (something you touch on, but could further elaborate upon), and talk about the other facets of his philosophy. You just need more, basically.
Straightforward and based in fact while not being overly obvious or predictable. Not much else I can say, really.
Prose and formatting:
This is where I dock you some points. Your writing is fine and free of misspellings, but your organization/formating etc. isn't particularly good:
The Death section should probably go at the end, due both to chronology and the fact that "even decades after Heraclitus' death, it still sucked to be him" is a fantastic line to go out on.
You use footnotes in the beginning, but then stop using them halfway through--if you're going to use footnotes, you should sprinkle them consistently throughout the article. The wonderful thing about footnotes is that you can write whatever the hell you want and make whatever joke you have to without interrupting the flow or tone of the actual article. That being said, you could probably throw in a bunch of really good footnotes in the Philosophy section to keep the article's feel consistent.
The vast majority of your paragraphs are no more than a sentence or two long, which sort of ties in with the "this is short" comment I made earlier. Though this gives your article a succinct, punchy pace, it also seems incomplete. Basically, just write more, so this feels like a complete article.
This is mostly just a nitpick, but I hate it when pictures interrupt the ==second-level header== line.
The images seem sort of done as an afterthought, a fact that is somewhat belied by the caption on the last picture. That being said, if you go to the Wikipedia page on Heraclitus (something I did to verify the cow crap bit), you see that all three pictures are essentially the same thing: Heraclitus, hunched over, looking melancholy. You should do this same thing (and use these same pictures), and caption them accordingly, i.e., "Heraclitus, in a state of melancholy," "Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher," "Heraclitus, being a pussy bitch," or something, you'd not only further stress the notion that Heraclitus was a pussy, but create a fantastic running joke. Just a thought.
I really liked reading this, and with some polish this should be an easy feature.